HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITIION Nos. 9160, 2050, 10355 and 22309 of 2010 DATED 6th November, 2014.
BETWEEN Smt. A.B.L. Tayaru …Petitioner in WP.No.9160 of 2010 M/s. Arif Exports, rep. by its Prop. Sri S.A.H. Arif …..Petitioner in WP.No. 2050 of 2010 M/s. R.K. Marketing Services, rep. by its authorized Signatory, Sri Chennupati Satish ….Petitioner in WP.No.10355 of 2010 Stm G.Gajalatha ….Petitioner in WP.No. 22309 of 2010 And The Government of AP, rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors …Respondents in all WPs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITIION Nos. 9160, 2050, 10355 and 22309 of 2010
COMMON ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
All these Writ Petitions can be disposed of by this common order as they involve same point for consideration.
These Writ Petitions were filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 06.11.2009 according permission under Rule 12(5)(h)(xiv) of Andhra Pradesh Miner Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 ( for short ‘ APMMC Rules’) to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad for cancellation of the quarry leases held by the petitioners under public interest as the Defence Research & Development Organization, Government of India is establishing Technical Training Institute in that area. The petitioners also challenge the consequential orders dated 01.02.2010 of termination of leases passed by the second respondent.
All the petitioners herein are quarry lease holders in various extents of land which were granted for a period of 20 years under various proceedings as detailed below:
It appears that while they have been operating the said leases, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam vide letter dated 11.06.2009 informed the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam that the Joint Director, Defence Research & Development Organization ( for short ‘DRDO’),New Delhi informed vide letter dated 11.06.2009 that quarry operations are not allowed by the Defence Organization in the land allotted to them and also within a radius of two Kilometers from the land allotted to them, and, accordingly requested not to permit any quarry operations up to two kilometers from the periphery of land allotted to DRDO. The total extent of Sy.No.1 of Vuralove village is 3109.98 acres, out of which, an extent of 30.00 Hectares is covered under quarry leases for extraction of colour granite blocks granted to seven lease holders. An extent of 113.00 hectares is covered under quarry leases granted for building stones and road metal. The total extent of land in Sy.No. 379/1 of Chinthaluru village is 1800.00 acres, out of which, 33.00 hectares is covered under quarry leases granted for extraction of colour granite blocks and an extent of 17.00 hectares is covered under quarry lease granted for building stone and road metal. After receipt of the letter from the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, the Supervisor of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam prepared a sketch/plan showing both the quarry leases for colour granite, building stones and road metal falling within the area allotted to DRDO Project and the leases falling within the periphery of two kilometers radius of the area allotted to the said project. It was noticed that the five lease holders as stated above are falling outside the periphery of the said project area, but within two kilometers of radius. Accordingly, as per the instructions of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology submitted separate proposals to the Director of Mines and Geology through letter dated 24.06.2009 for obtaining necessary permission from the Government for cancellation of six quarry leases for colour granite under Rule 12 (5)(h)(xiv)of APMMC Rules and also 14 quarry leases for building stones and road metal under Rule 31(xvii) of APMMC Rules. Accordingly, the Government issued impugned order in Memo dated 06.11.2009 according permission to the Director of Mines and Geology, who thereafter issued show cause notices dated 30.11.2009 to the lease holders and the lease holders submitted their respective explanations to the said show cause notices. Pursuant to the same, the second respondent passed orders on 01.02.2010 determining the leases. Challenging the action of the first respondent in granting permission to the second respondent for determination of leases held by the petitioners, the present Writ Petitions were filed.
This Court by order dated 29.04.2010 suspended the operation of the impugned proceedings in cancelling the quarry leases with the following observations:
“ I am of the prima facie view that failure of Respondent No.2 to refer to the various objections raised by the petitioner in its explanation and rejecting the said explanation by cryptic reason that the same has not been found satisfactory shows his total non- application of mind. Though in the counter affidavit, respondent No.2 sought to explain the reasons, the law is well settled that the authority cannot be permitted to supplement the reasons, which are otherwise not found in the impugned order. As the order of cancellation results in serious adverse consequences to the petitioner, respondent No.2 is bound to refer to and examine the objections filed by the petitioner before finding them as not satisfactory. As respondent No.2 failed to undertake this exercise and come out with the reasons for his satisfaction that the petitioner’s explanation is found not satisfactory, I find balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner for granting interim suspension.”
Rule 12(5)(h)(xiv) of APMMC Rules reads as follows:
“ The Director may in consultation with the Government determine the license or lease, if it is considered necessary to do so in public interest after giving two calendar months notice in writing.:
A reading of the aforesaid rule position makes it clear that the lease can be determined in public interest by giving two calendar months notice in writing.
Show cause notices were issued to the petitioners, who submitted their respective explanations; ultimately, leases were determined under the consequential impugned orders dated 01.02.2010 on the ground that the area has been allotted to the DRDO for establishment of a technical institute. Evidently quarry leased areas are not falling within the area allotted to the DRDO, but they are outside the area allotted to the DRDO. When the petitioners submitted their respective explanations, the second respondent should have applied his mind independently to the facts of the case and should have decided cases determining the lease in the public interest, but orders determining the leases have been passed merely stating that the explanations submitted to the show cause notices were not found satisfactory. Beyond this, there is no reason in the impugned orders or in the counter affidavit showing as to how public interest is best served by determining the leases which are in fact has fallen outside the area allotted to the DRDO. Though the Defence Organization maintained that a radius of 2 KMs from periphery of the land allotted to DRDO should be free from all hindrances and disturbances, but, there is no document authorizing to impose such prohibitions. The DRDO was allotted an extent of 937.24 acres in Chintaluru and Vurulova Konda of Madugula Mandal for establishment of a technical institute in the said land under proceedings dated 29.01.2009 although leases granted in favour of the petitioners were already in operation. The learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners have paid crores of rupees to the State Exchequer towards royalty and they have been using modern technology in extracting the colour granite. At this juncture, it is trite to notice that one of the petitioners paid seigniorage fee/royalty to the tune of Rs.1,97,55,775/- to the State Exchequer for the period from 2004 to 2014 and they have been using modern technology, namely, Feather’s & Wedges Technology, to split the rock after drilling holes vertically and horizontally to the rock and filling the same with a chemical which expands after a few hours and causes crack in it and thereafter it uses modern machinery like excavators, dumpers to push the blocks from place to place within the quarry lease area before they are finally dressed as per international norms and requirements of foreign as well as local buyers; and that there is a big hillock of about more than 500 meters between quarrying activity of the petitioners and the buildings which have come up within the area allocated to the DRDO and the petitioners thus maintained that there is not even remote possibility of this quarrying activity affecting the activities of the DRDO.
Further, it is to be seen from a perusal of the impugned proceedings that determination of leases of the petitioners were taken on the basis of the stand of the Joint Director of DRDO, New Delhi without independent application of mind by respondents 1 and 2. Even the order of sanction issued by the first respondent also does not indicate reasons for cancellation of quarry leases except stating that they have determined the leases in public interest. Public interest is a wide term which encompasses many events. The respondents also did not enclose a copy of the Joint Director of DRDO dated 11.06.2009 nor indicated the jurisdiction of the said authority for determination of the leases of the petitioners.
For the foregoing discussion and in the result, Memo No. 9650/M.H.(1)/2009-2, Industries and Commerce (Mines-II) Department, dated 06.11.2009 issued by the first respondent and consequential orders dated 01.02.2010 passed by the second respondent determining the leases are set aside. However, it is made clear that this order will not prevent respondents 1 and 2 from issuing fresh notice to the petitioners based on concrete data indicating specific reasons for determining the leases, if they are so advised.
The Writ Petitions are allowed accordingly. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 6th November, 2014. Msnrx