M/S SRI BHARGAVI GRANTIE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD. v. PRLSECY., MINES & GEOLOGY DEPT., GUN., & 4 OTHERS

the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or orders by declarir., the action of the respondent not allotting the land for granting of mining lease for an extent of Ac 75 out of Ac 86.50 Cents in Sy. No 55/5 of RL Puram Village, Chimakurthi Mandal which is alloted to the petitioner long back which is illegally arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to allot the land for mining of the land in Sy. No 55/5 of RL Puram Village, Chimakurthi Mandel Prakasam District. LA. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 47011 OF 2017) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. G VASANTHA RAYUDU Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 & 5 : GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel for the Respondents 4 : GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following Order: APHC010834402017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] TUESDAY .THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 37846/2017 Between: M/s Sri Bhargavi Grantie Industries Pvt Ltd., ...PETITIONER AND PrI Secy Mines Geology Dept Gun 4 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 .G VASANTHA RAYUDU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP)

2.GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: to Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate " writ, order or direction declaring the action of respondents in not allotting the land for granting of mining lease for an extent of Ac. 75.00 cents out of Ac.86.50 cents in Sy.No.55/5 of RL Puram village, Chimakurthi Mandal which is allotted to the petitioner long back as illegal ”

#2. Mr.G.Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel petitioner and Ms.P.Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines Geology are present.

#3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is conjointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.32327 of 2015 dated 19.10.2024.

#4. In view of the submissions made by both the petitioner’s counsel and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, this Writ Petition is closed, in terms of the above said Order in Writ Petition No.32327 of 2015, dated

19.10.2024.

#5. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

#6. Registry is directed to attach a copy of the Order in Writ Petition No.32327 of 2015, dated 19.10.2024, to this Order. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- P.VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To

#1. One CC to SRI. G VASANTHA RAYUDU Advocate [OPUC]

#2. Two CCs to GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP) ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

#3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE (AP) ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] A Throo r^.n f HIGH COURT DATED:05/11/2024 ORDER WP.No.37846 of 2017 CLOSED THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS APHC010689542015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] SATURDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 32327/2015 Between: Chuttu Ashok Kumar AND ...PETITIONER The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.PGANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP) The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “ to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not granting Mining Lease for Silica Sand to an extent of 4.977 Hectares (Ac.12-30 cents) in S.No.1 of Addepalli village, Chillakuru mandal as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 1^* respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of Mining Lease for Silica Sand over an extent of 4.977 Hectares (Ac.12-30 cents) in S.No.1 of Addepalli village, Chillakuru mandal as per the recommendations of 2”'' respondent in accordance with the provisions of M.M.(D&R) Act, 1957 and M.C.Rules, 1960 ” 2

#2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for Mining lease

19.01.2001 for Silica Sand over an extent of 225 acres in Survey No.1 of Addepalli Village, Chillakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore district for a period of 20 years to the 1"‘ respondent through the 3^^^ respondent. After survey and demarcation, the actual extent has come to Ac. 12.30 cents. The petitioner submitted his consent for grant of lease to extent of demarcated area. The District Collector, SPSR Nellore district vide letter No.Rc.E9/33797/11 , dated

26.09.2011 informed the respondents that the subject area is not covered unde SEZ and not allotted to anybody. Thereafter, the 1 St respondent vide Memo No.3180/M.l(2)/2007, dated 06.12.2013 issued notice to the petitioner directing to submit approved Mining Plan under Rule 22 (4) of M.C.Rules, 1960, Environmental clearance from Government of India and consent for Establishment (CFE) from A.P.Pollution Control Board within a period of six months from the date of receipt of Memo. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted the Mining plan approved by Joint Director of Mines and Geology vide letter No.18/MP/NLR/2014, dated 07.03.2014 and also the consent of Establishment (CFE) A.P.Pollution Control Board, Zonal Officer, Vijayawada No.276/PCB/ZO-VJA/CFE/2014-1687

04.12.2014 to the respondent. But the respondents has not granted mining lease. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3

#3. Today, when the nnatter is taken up for hearing, none appeared for the petitioner.

#4. Heard Mr.P.Rama Krishna, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, for the respondents.

#5. On hearing, learned Government Pleader submits that, due to changing policy of G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 14.03.2022, the petitioner cannot claim any relief petition. He further submits that, no person has any fundamental right to claim that he should be granted mining lease or prospecting license permitted reconnaissance operation in any land belonging to the Government.

#6. To support his contention, learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on a decision reported in State of Rajasthan and others v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawaf, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held in paras 17 and 18 as follows: “17. It is far too settled that there is no right vested over an application made which is pending seeking lease of a Government land or over the minerals beneath the soil in any type of land over which the Government has a vested right and regulatory control. In other words, a mere filing of an application ipso facto does not create any right. The power of the Government to amend, being an independent one, pending applications do not come in the way. For a right to be vested there has to be a statutory recognition. Such a right has to accrue and any decision will have to create the resultant injury. When a decision is taken by a competent authority in public interest by evolving a better process such as auction, a right, if any, to an applicant seeking lease over a Government land evaporates 2023 see Online se 898 4 on its own. An applicant cannot have an exclusive right in seeking a grant of license of a mineral unless facilitated accordingly by a statute. State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone & Others, (1981) 2 see 205:- renewal consideration “13. Another submission of the learned counsel In connection applications applications made sixty days or more before the date of G.O.Ms No. 1312 (December 2, 1977) should be dealt with as if Rule 8-C had not come into force. It was also contended that even applications for grant of leases made long before the date of G.O.Ms No. 1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8-C had not come into force. The submission was that it was not open to the government to keep applications for the grant of leases and applications for renewal pending for a long time and then to reject them on the basis of Rule 8-C notwithstanding the fact that the applications had been made long prior to the date on which Rule 8-C came Into force. While it is true that such appiications should be dealt with within a reasonable time, it cannot on that account be said that the right to have an application disposed of in a reasonable time clothes an applicant for a lease with a right to have the aooUcation disposed of on the basis of the rules in force at the time of the making of the application. No one has a vested right to the grant or renewal of a lease and none can claim a vested right to have an application for the grant or renewal of a lease dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions. In the absence of any vested rights in anyone, an application for a lease has necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules In force on the date of the disposal of the application despite the fact that there Is a long delay since the making of the application. We therefore, unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel that applications for the grant of renewal of leases made long prior to the date of G.O.Ms No. 1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8- C did not exist. ” “18. The question of applicants not having fundamental right in mining is no longer res Integra, Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCO 1 may shed some light, “No fundamental right is mining

#133. The appellants have applied for mining leases in a land belonging to the Government of Jharkhand (erstwhile Bihar) and it is for iron ore which is a mineral included in Schedule I to the 1957 Act in respect of which no mining lease can be granted without the prior approvai of the Central Government. It goes without saving that no person can ciaim any right in any iand belonging to the Government or in any mines in any /and belonging to the Government except under the 1957 Act and the 1960 Ruies. No person has any fundamental right to ciaim that he should be granted mining lease or prospecting licence or permitted operation reconnaissance is apt to quote the following statement of Government. It O.Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Hind Stone [(1981) 2 SCO 205] (SCC p. 213, para 6) albeit in the context of minor mineral, in any iand belonging “6. ... The public interest which induced Parliament to make the declaration contained in Section 2 ... has naturally to be the paramount consideration in all matters concerning the regulation of mines and the development of minerals”. 5 He went on to say; (Hind Stone case 1(1981) 2 SCC 2051 see o. 217. oara 10)

#10. The statute with which we are concerned, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, IS aimed... at the conservation and the prudent and discriminating exploitation of minerals. Surely, in the case of a scarce mineral, to permit exploitation by the State or its aoenev and to prohibit exploitation by private agencies Is the most effective method of conservation and prudent exploitation. If you want to conserve for the future, you must prohibit in the present. ’’

#7. Learned Government Pleader on relying upon the above decision, submits that “mere filing of an application for granting mining lease does not create any right to the applicant”. Therefore, learned Government Pleader prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

#8. As per of the G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 14.03.2022, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 15 and 23C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the rules regulating the grant of mining leases in respect of minor minerals in the State of Andhra Pradesh by conducting E-Auctions with the rules and the same were notified with effect from 15.03.2022.

#9. On considering the above submissions of learned Government Pleader and upon perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that, in view of the changing policy of the Government for granting lease by way of E-Auction, nothing survives in the writ petition for any further adjudication and the same is liable to be closed. 6

#10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

#11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. BMS Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J