High Court · 2012

Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

5. For better appreciation, the grounds of rejection, in the impugned orders passed by the Secretary to Government, in all the writ petitions, is noted as under: Area and extent S.no. Number of Writ petition

1. 11498/2009 1300-00 hetcs. In compartment nos.77,78 & 79 of Yambayi Reserve Forest, Kurnool District.

2. 19250/2009 1000 hectares compartment nos.188 & 189 of Mettupalli Reserve Mandal Forest, Dhone, Dhone, Range, Kurnool District. Grounds of rejection in the impugned orders. Mineral sought Mining Iron ore. No reply to the show cause notice dated 9.4.2009 Irone ore. No prospecting work was carried out specifically to the applied extents. It is a general geological reconnaissance survey carried out based on the out crops exposure. The actual prospecting consists geological geophysical if necessary geo chemical survey coupled with exploratory drilling to evaluate the reserves grade wise Zone The precise applied areas. Assistant Director Mines and Geology’s one day field visit would not bring out the reserves and do not satisfy Section 5(2) of the Act. Hence, the reply given is not satisfactory. prove reserves

3. 22243/2009 1000 Hectares Iron ore - Do - Compartment nos.190 & 198 of R.F., Peapully II, Extention –I & Dhone Range, District Kurnool A.P. 22242/2009 1500 Hectares

4. compartment nos.220 to 230, 258 267 Jaladurgam Reserve Dhone Kurnool District. Forest, Range, - Do - Iron oe, Iron ore. No reply to the show cause notice dated 3.6.2009.

5. 19335/2009 1000 Hectares compartment nos.241 to 245 & 248 to 250 of North Reserve Dhone Dhone Forest, Range, Kurnol District. Iron ore. Same reason as noted at serial no.2. Iron ore. Same reason as noted as serial no.2

7. 19327/2009 48.58 hectres sy.Nos.495/P, 488, 489, 481 to 487, 465 to 468, 470 to 479, 998, 1040, 459, 457 455 Nagamallakunta, H/o Gutupalli village, Betamcherla Mandal , Kurnool District. 19321/2009 1000 Hectares compartment nos. 205, 206 and 207 of Peddapaya Reserved Dhone Reserved Manal, District. forest, Range Forest Kurnool

8. 12449/2009 500 hectares compartment nos.245, 246, 247 & 248 of Village Dhone Forest Range, Mandal North Dhone Reserved Forest, Kurnool District.

9. 13696/2009 1000 Hectares compartment nos.240 to 243 of Dhone Village range, Forest Manaal North Dhone Reserved Forest, Kurnool District. 13697/2009 200 Hectares compartment nos.65 to 70 of Yaparlapadu Forest, Reserved Kurnool Divisionl, Kurnool District.

10. Irone ore, clay. The applicant has not submitted any report prospected by any recognized agency with regard to availability of iron ore in the area applied for mining. Iron ore. No reply to the show cause notice dated 9.4.2009 Iron ore. No reply to the show cause notice dated 9.4.2009 Iron ore No reply to the show cause notice dated 9.4.2009. Iron ore. No reply to the show cause notice dated 9.4.2009. Iron ore. No reply to the show cause notice.

13. 13698/2009 Acs.234.44 gts Sy.Nos.613 to 616, 606 B to 609, 598, 599 A, 861, 597, 600 A, 596, 581, 582 B, 582 A, 580, 849, 872, 871, 870 & 850 Bukkapuram village, Bethamcherla Mandal, District. Kurnool 13814/2009 1500 hectares Sy.Nos.174 to 179, 179/A & 180 of L Banda, R.F. Village, Bethamcherla Mandal, district. Kurnool 13815/2009 1300 Hects Sy/compartment nos.69, 68, 66, 64 & 70 of Yaparlapadu Forest, Reserve Kurnool Sector & D i v i s i o n , Kurnool District.

14. 23985/2008 500 Hectares Iron ore compartment nos.245, 247, 248, 249 & 250 of North Dhone reserve F o r e s t , Dhone Forest Range, Kurnool District. The State Government have in principle decided to reserve the Ore bearing areas of Iron Kurnool District (Excluding the existing PL and MLs) exclusive exploitation by Pradesh Minerals Andhra Development Corporation Limited.

15. 23994/2008 500 Hectares Iron ore. - Do - Compartment nos.246, 247 & 248 of North Dhone Reserve Forest, Kurnool District.

16. 15513/2009 11.174 Hectares in 274/A/A Sy.Nos.267/1, 278/4A & 4B, 269/1 village, Pullalgunni Veldurthi Mandal Kurnbool District.

17. 15514/2009 13.323 Hectares in Sy.No.308/1 P e n d e k a l village, Bethamcherla Mandal, District. Kurnool Iron ore. The applicant has not submitted report prospected by any authorized agency with regard to availability of mineral. Iron ore. - Do -

19. 15512/2009 61.623 Hectares in Sy.No.291/P P e n d e k a l village, Bethamcherla Mandal, District. 19131/2009 249.25 Kurnool 853, etc. Gutupalli Sy.No.841/2, 852 village, Bethamcherla Mandal, District. Kurnool

20. Acs.12.17 sy.No.203/W Bayyaram village, Bayyaram mandal, Khammam District.

21. 22488/2009 Ac.1120 gts. In Sy.Nos.45/57, 45/58, 45/59 & 45/60 situate at Motla Timmapuram village, Bayyaram Mandal, Khammam District.

22. 14160/2009 Ac.50-20 Sy.Nos.1/50 to 1/66, 1/72 to 1/78, 1/81 to 1/84 and 1/95 of Gurimella Village, Bayyaram Mandal, Khammam District.

23. 15531/2009 Acs.28-21 gts. inSy.No.45/85 Metlathimmauram village, Bayyaram mandal, Khammam District.

25. 14143/2009 Acs.23.40 27, Sy.No.202/13, 28 & 40 of Balajipet village, Bayyaram Mandal, Khammam District. 14118/2009 Acs.12-17 village d Mandal, Sy.No.203/W Bayyaram a n Khammam District. Iron ore. - Do - Iron ore No reply to the show cause notice dated 9.4.2009 Iron ore. To reserve the area in public interest to utilize iron ore mineral for optimum use by the State Public Sector Undertaking generate more revenue and employment in the State. Iron Ore After careful examination of the matter, Government felt that the submitted justification report earlier, while processing mining lease application of the applicant, by the O/o ADM & G, Kothaudem and O/o DM & G, about mineral Hyderabad, occurrence in the applied areas instead of prospecting the area, does not compensation actual prospection of the area. - Do - Iron ore Iron ore - Do -- Iron ore - Do - Iron ore - Do - Iron Ore - Do -

26. 14117/2009 Acs.24-20 Sy.No.60/1 Ramachandrapuram village, Bayyaram Mandal, Khammam District.

6. In all the writ petitions, counter affidavits have been filed, justifying the orders of rejection.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners contended that that the petitioners have complied with all the conditions for grant of mining lease; that the petitioners were not given opportunity before passing the impugned orders of rejection and hence it amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice; that the respondents have failed to consider the material available on record, which is in favour of the writ petitioners to grant the mining lease; that the impugned orders are predetermined in nature; that no tenable reasons are assigned in the impugned orders; that the respondents abused their discretion with mala fide intention and oblique motive; that there are several notifications issued by the Government to show that abundant mineral is available in the petition schedule land and the petitioners have filed the material evidence, but the same was not considered; that assuming that no mineral is available in the petition schedule lands, then there is no justification to reserve the said area in favour of APMDC; that the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, conducted the field survey and submitted report recommending for grant of mining leases in favour of the petitioners, in which case, it cannot be said that the mineral is not available; that in respect of similar situated persons, in the areas in question, mining leases were granted, but the same treatment was denied to the petitioners and this is arbitrary and discriminative on the part of the respondents in rejecting the cases of the petitioners by issuing the impugned orders; that the grounds recorded in the impunged orders are contradictory and passed without application of mind and; that since the writ petitioners have complied with all the conditions for grant of mining leases in their favour, it is the duty of the State Government to forward the same to the Central Government for consideration and the stage of forwarding the applications, the role of State Government is very limited and as such, it cannot reject the applications filed by the petitioners. With these contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, sought to set aside the impugned orders of rejection

8. The learned Government Pleaders contended that the impugned orders are passed based on the material available on record and by recording reasons and they are in accordance with law and sought to dismiss the writ petitions.

9. Without delving much into the merits of rejection, it could be conspicuously noticed that the respondent in some of the writ petitions, have rejected the applications of the petitioners on the ground that there is no evidence of existence of iron ore and no prospecting operations were carried out by the petitioners. In respect of the very same area/district, in some of the writ petitions, the grounds of rejection are that in principle the Government has taken decision to reserve the area for the public sector undertaking Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited. Under Section 17(A)(2) of the Act, the Government can reserve any area, subject to certain conditions, with approval of the Central Government. Admittedly, as on today, there is no approval from the Central Government in the areas under Kurnool District. In respect of areas in Khammam District, such approval has been cancelled and the beneficiary company of APMDC, which was given contract for exploitation of mineral on behalf of APMDC, has filed writ petitions and the Government also issued G.Os., cancelling the agreement and the said dispute is pending adjudication before this court.

10. Be that as it may, as noticed from the above table, the grounds of rejection are contradictory, since, if mineral is not available, there cannot be any justification in seeking to reserve the said area in favour of any public sector undertaking. Further, in some cases, it was rejected on the ground that report of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology is not sufficient. In some cases it is rejected that reply to the show cause notice is not filed. It is brought on record that the replies filed by the petitioners pursuant to the show cause notices, have been received by the respondents. Therefore, this shows that the rejection has been made without considering the explanations submitted by the petitioners. Further, in some writ petitions, the rejection was on the ground that the applicant has not submitted any report prospected by any authorized agency with regard to availability of mineral. The petitioners have filed certain notifications and material evidence to show that iron ore is available in the areas in question. But in the impugned orders of rejection, there is no reference to the material evidence filed by the writ petitioners.

11. To consider the contention of the petitioners that reports filed by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, with regard to the availability of mineral, is in compliance of Section 5 (2)(a) of the Act, it is necessary to note the said provision as under:

5. Restrictions on the grant of prospecting licences or mining leases:-- (1). . (2) No mining lease shall be granted by the State Government unless it is satisfied that- (a) there is evidence to show that the area for which the lease is applied for has been prospected earlier or the existence of mineral contents therein has been established otherwise than by means of prospecting such area; and (b) there is mining plan duly approved by the Central Government, or by the State Government, in respect of such category of mines as may be specified by development of mineral deposits in the area concerned. the Central Government,

12. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that the mining lease shall not be granted unless it is satisfied that there is evidence to show that the area for which the lease is applied for, has been prospected earlier or the existence of mineral contents therein has been established otherwise than by means of prospecting such area. In the present cases, the case of the petitioners is that they have complied with all the statutory formalities and the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology has submitted report to the Director of Mines and Geology stating that the iron ore is available on the surface level itself and hence it is clear that the mineral is available in abundance. The report of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, as per the case of the petitioners, is in compliance of the second limb of clause (a) of sub section 2 of Section 5. The further grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have forwarded the applications of several other applicants to the Central Government and they have not raised the objections as in the present case for rejection and this shows arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. 13 Further, as already noticed above, though the petitioners have submitted explanations to the show cause notices, in the impugned order, it is stated that no reply is filed. Along with the writ petitions, the petitioners filed the replies submitted by them, bearing acknowledgement stamps of the respondent. But in the orders of rejection, the explanations submitted by the petitioners have not been considered.

14. In my considered view, having regard to the above facts and circumstances, giving inconsistent reasons for rejection, non-consideration of material evidence filed by the petitioners and the explanations submitted by the petitioners, amounts to non- application of mind and also amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice and it is well settled that when there is violation of principles of natural justice, directing the petitioners to avail alternate remedy of appeal, is unwarranted.

15. This court passed interim orders in W.P.Nos.2731, 20374, 15112, 15113 of 2009 and 23994 and 23985 of 2008 directing the respondents to process the applications of the petitioners, without reference to the impugned orders of rejection. Subsequently, on vacate petitions being filed, the interim orders were vacated.

16. In writ petitions pertaining to Khammam District, M/s Rakshana Steels Limited and its consortium, represented by its Director, filed implead petitions, in WPMP.No.38773/2012 WP.No.14118/2009, WPMP.No.40111/2012 W.P.No.14117/2009, WPOMP.No.38803/2012 W.P.No.14143/2009, WPMP.No.38804/2012 in W.P.No.15531/2009 and WPMP.No.38802/2012 W.P.No.22488/2009, seeking impleadment and its case is that the iron ore was reserved in its favour through APMDC and when the same was cancelled by the official respondents, the same was challenged before this court in W.P.No.31370/2010, and in WPMP.NO.39911/2011 in W.P.No.31370/2010, by interim order dated 16.12.2010, this court directed that respondents shall not grant mining lease in respect of areas situated in Bayyaram, Garla, Nelakondapalli of Khammam District and Gudur Mandal of Warangal District. In view of these facts and circumstances, the implead petitions are ordered, as the said petitioners are interested parties to the subject matter.

17. However, it is to be noticed that in the present writ petitions, this court is examining the validity of the impugned order and as the reasons for rejection are found to be contradictory and in violation of the principles of natural justice, and passed without considering the explanations and the material evidence submitted by the petitioners, they are being set aside. When the authorities seek to entertain the applications for granting the mining leases, the interim order of this court shall become operative. But for the disposal of the present writ petitions, the interim order passed in W.P.No.31370/2010 cannot be a bar.

18. Before parting with the case, it is to be noticed that though the counsel appearing for the respective parties, raised contentions on the merits of the case, vis-à-vis the relevant provisions and also relied on the case law, they are not being referred to, since it is found that the impugned orders are passed without application of mind and in violation of the principles of natural justice and this court is contemplating to remit the matter back to the authorities below, for considering the cases afresh, after giving opportunity to the petitioners.

19. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders in all the writ petitions are set aside. The respondents in W.P.Nos. 23985 and 23994 of 2008 and 2731, 11498, 19250, 22243, 22242, 19335, 19327, 19321, 12449, 13696, 13697, 13698, 13814, 13815, 14160, 15513, 15514, 15512 and 19131 of 2009, are directed to consider the case of the writ petitioners afresh, by considering the explanations submitted in pursuance to the show cause, and after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard, shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

20. In W.P.No.19348/2010, the respondents are directed the process the application of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

21. In respect of the writ petitions in W.P.Nos. 22488, 15531, 14143, 14118 and 14117 of 2009, the consideration of the applications of the petitioners, shall be subject to the outcome of interim orders in WPMP.NO.39911/2011 in W.P.No.31370/2010 dated

16.12.2010.

22. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

23. Consequent to the disposal of the writ petitions, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed. ------------------------------------ ------------- 05 --12--2012 AVS