D.R. Enterprises v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented

: Counsel for the appellant: Sri D. Prakash Reddy, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Harender Pershad, Advocate Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce

Counsel for respondent No.4: Smt.N. Shobha March 17, 2006 Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ This is an appeal for setting aside order dated December 23, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby he dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing proceedings/orders dated July 13, 2004, May 21, 2005 and May 25, 2005 issued/passed by respondents 1 to 3 respectively. The appellant is a proprietorship concern and respondent No.4 is a registered company. Sri K. Dhananjay Reddy is proprietor of the appellant, while his brother Sri K. Subba Reddy is Managing Director of Respondent No.4. The appellant applied for grant of lease of surface rights to an extent of Ac.4-96 cents comprised in Sy.No.60 (part) and 63/4 (part) of which K. Subba Reddy is the pattadar. Deputy Director, Mines and Geology, Hyderabad accepted the application of the appellant in 1991 and granted quarry lease for a period of 5 years. Later on, the term of the lease was extended for a period of 15 years commencing from 21-12-1996. After extension of the term of lease, the appellant agreed to transfer the same in favour of Respondent No.4. For this purpose, Sri K. Dhananjay Reddy submitted an application dated November 6, 2001 in the prescribed format i.e., Model Form – R as per the requirement of Andhra Pradesh Mines and Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’). It, however, appears that the matter was not pursued till October 6, 2003 when Sri K. Dhananjay Reddy filed an application/affidavit before the competent authority conveying his intention to withdraw the transfer application. After one month and one day, he submitted another letter dated November 7, 2003 withdrawing the affidavit/application dated October 6, 2003. The Assistant Geologist inspected the site on January 29, 2004 and submitted report that the functioning of the quarry lease was satisfactory. Thereafter, Director, Mines and Geology, Hyderabad issued proceedings dated 17-2-2004 and granted permission for transfer of the quarry lease in favour of respondent No.4. The appellant challenged the aforementioned decision by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was registered as Writ Petition No.4262 of

2004. The main ground on which the appellant questioned the transfer of lease in favour of respondent No.4 was that in view of application/affidavit dated 6.10.2003, the transfer application filed by Sri K. Dhananjay Reddy will be deemed to have become redundant. The learned Single Judge did not accept the plea of the appellant and dismissed the writ petition vide his order dated 30.4.2004. The relevant extracts of that order are reproduced below:- “17. In fact, the facts as already narrated clearly show that third respondent is the Pattadar of the land in question, where mining lease was granted in favour of the petitioner originally and even with reference to the mining lease, the petitioner entered into an agreement with third respondent and allowed third respondent to work under a raising agreement. Further, in view of the close relationship between the proprietor of the petitioner concern and the Managing Director of third respondent, both of them have submitted affidavits as required for transfer of the mining lease from the petitioner to third respondent along with transfer application.

But due to the delay in processing and completing the transfer, the petitioner submitted an affidavit/application dated 6-10-2003, proposing to withdraw, and again submitted another letter dated 7-11-2003 withdrawing the earlier letter/affidavit dated 6-10-2003. Having confirmed the transfer application and the affidavits filed by the last letter dated 7-11-2003, it is not open to the petitioner to dispute the said letter. In fact, the petitioner has gone to the extent of denying the fact of submission of such letter, which is contrary to the material on record. As already referred to, a perusal of the letter dated 7-11-2003 clearly shows that it was not only signed by the proprietor of the petitioner concern, but also written in his own handwriting and the submission of such letter was also supported by the entry made in the Inward Register maintained in the office of second respondent. In the light of such abundant material available on record, it is not open to the petitioner to deny submission of such a letter dated 7-11-2003.

In fact, the conduct of the proprietor of the petitioner concern also does not inspire confidence to accept what he has stated in the affidavit is true. In fact, as per the original application, he has even received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from third respondent, which is said to have been incurred by him towards obtaining the lease rights and investment made for the development of the mine. It is not open to the petitioner to go back and contend that third respondent failed to comply with certain of the conditions and, therefore, sought to withdraw the transfer application. In any case, as there is a clear material available on record to show that the original transfer application filed along with the required affidavits by both the petitioner and third respondent, seeking to transfer the mining lease, were pending before respondents 1 and 2 for passing appropriate orders, though the petitioner claims that the said application was withdrawn by an affidavit/application dated 6-10-2003, but in view of the finding recorded earlier that the said application/affidavit dated 6-10-2003 was withdrawn by letter dated 7-11-2003.

Thereafter, there was no hurdle before the official respondents to process and pass appropriate orders on the transfer application. First respondent, having satisfied as to the compliance of the rules and considering the report of second respondent, passed the impugned order. Mere non- reference to the letters dated 6-10-2003 and 7-11-2003 by first respondent is not material, as a reference to those letters is very much available in the proceedings of second respondent, basing on which the impugned orders were issued by first respondent. The impugned order of first respondent does not suffer from any illegalities or irregularities and, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. No other ground is neither raised, nor argued. The interim order of status quo stands vacated.” After disposal of the writ petition, Assistant Director, Mines a n d Geology, Ongole issued proceedings dated 13-7-2004 whereby he called upon the appellant to attend his office within seven days for execution of transfer lease-deed.

It was also indicated in the communication sent to the appellant that if it fails to appear, then the transfer lease-deed would be executed in its absence. The appellant challenged the communication by filing revision petition before the State Government, which was dismissed by the Secretary to Government, Industries and Commerce (Mines-II) Department vide his order dated 21-5-2005. He noted the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant that permission accorded by the Director of Mines and Geology in proceedings dated 7-2-2004 did not confer any right either on the transferee or on the authorities to execute the transfer lease-deed; that Rule 12(5)(h)(viii) provides for transfer of lease with the prior sanction of the Director of Mines and Geology and Rule 12 (e) provides for the manner in which a licence or lease is to be executed and without following that procedure, the transfer lease-deed could not be executed in favour of respondent No.4; that non-execution of the lease-deed by the appellant had the effect of rendering the sanction granted by the Director as nugatory and held that in view of order dated 30-4-2004 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.4262 of 2004, there was every justification for execution of transfer lease-deed in favour of respondent No.4.

Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the revisional order read as under: “15. It is further observed that when agreed to transfer the lease by filing Form ‘R’, which is a statutory form for transfer of lease; and when all the requirements were fulfilled in this regard; the Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad, had issued transfer proceedings, which are strictly in accordance with Rule 12 (5)(h)(viii) of APMMC Rules, 1966. These transfer proceedings were also upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. Hence, it is obligatory on the part of transferor to transfer the quarry lease.

In view of the said order of the Hon’ble High Court upholding the quarry lease transfer order of the authorities, since the petitioner herein did not turn up for execution of the transfer of lease deed, the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Ongole, vide his Letter No.6260/Q/1996 dated 13-07-2004, requested the petitioner herein based on the directions of the Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad to attend his office within 7 days from the date of receipt of the letter for execution of the transfer lease deed, failing which the transfer lease deed will be executed in the absence of the petitioner with the transferee. Hence, in view of what is observed in the foregoing paras, Government do not find any merits on the arguments of M/s.D.R. Enterprises and also do not find any valid reasons to interfere with the letter issued by the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Ongole, vide No.6260/Q/1996, dt.13- 07-2004.