IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CONTEMPT CASE Nos: 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598, & 599 of 2009 BETWEEN: M/s. Lakshmi Mining Company and others. ... PETITIONERS AND Smt. Y. Sri Lakshmi, Secretary to Government, Industries & Commerce Department, Government of AP, Secretariat, Hyderabad, AP and others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. DONTHI REDDY VENKAT REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES & GEOLOGY The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These contempt cases are filed alleging that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the orders of this Court in WP.Nos.28290, 28291, 28292, 28293, 28294, 28295, 28296 and 28297 of 2009 all dated 26.12.2008; wherein the Director of Mines and Geology was directed to consider and dispose of the applications of the petitioners with respect to the area applied for within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 2. Initially, notice before admission was ordered by this Court on 01.05.2009, thereafter the learned Government has filed counter on behalf of the respondents. 3. Heard both sides. 4. It is brought to my notice that in terms of the order passed by this court in the writ petitions referred to above, the petitioners were given notice under Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and thereafter, the applications for mining lease were ultimately rejected. The petitioners moved these contempt cases at the stage when they were given notices under Rule 26 of the Rules referred to above before passing final orders. Subsequently, final orders have been passed and against the said orders rejecting the claim of the petitioners, the petitioners have already filed independent writ petitions, which are pending consideration before this Court. Since these contempt cases are identical, the details with regard to each case are as per the tabular statement below furnished by the learned Government Pleader. Sl. No. Contempt case Writ Petition Name Date of Rejection 1 C.C.No.592 of 2009 WP.No.19250 of 2009 Laxmi Mining Company 02.07.2009 2 C.C.No.593 of 2009 WP.No.19327 of 2009 Vijaya Mining Company 02.07.2009 3 C.C.No.594 of 2009 WP.No.19335 of 2009 Laxmi Mining Company 02.07.2009 4 C.C.No.595 of 2009 WP.No.22488 of 2009 Mahendra Mining Company 02.07.2009 5 C.C.No.596 of 2009 WP.No.22243 of 2009 Vaishnavi Mining Company 02.07.2009 6 C.C.No.597 of 2009 Sourashtra Mining Company 02.07.2009 7 C.C.No.598 of 2009 WP.No.19321 of 2009 Vaibhav Mining Company 02.07.2009 8 C.C.No.599 of 2009 WP.No.22242 of 2009 Vamsi Mining Company 02.07.2009 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is constrained to file contempt petitions and writ petitions every time the respondents reject the applications of the petitioners for mining lease. According to the learned counsel, the conduct of the respondents in repeatedly resorting to the same method of rejecting the applications is driving the petitioners to file fresh writ petitions at every stage and fresh contempt cases, as the orders of this Court are invariably not complied with. Learned counsel also submits that the conduct exhibited by the official respondents so far shows that they have deliberately rejected the applications of the petitioners on one ground or the other driving the petitioners to litigate over every repetitive action of the respondents in this Court in one proceeding or the other. In other words, the learned counsel for the petitioners is seeking to attack the impugned order of rejection also on the ground of the conduct of the respondents as exhibited from the record. 6. I am afraid the scope of these contempt cases does not permit any such contention to be taken into consideration, especially, as the petitioners have already questioned the rejection orders in each of these cases by separate writ petitions. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the contentions, as are permissible under law, in those writ petitions. However, since the respondents have complied with the order of this Court by taking a decision and disposing of the applications of the petitioners for mining lease, though belatedly, the case of willful disobedience is not made out. 7. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the rejection proposals were submitted to the Government based on the Government Memo No.6038/M.III(I)/2008-2, dated 19.05.2008 and the Government, however, has returned the file and thereafter, the Director of Mines and Geology requested the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology to submit proposal duly examining the provisions under Sections 5 & 11 of Mines and Minerals (D&R) Act, 1957 read with Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Based on the said proposal, show cause notices were issued to the petitioners on 30.05.2009 and after considering their reply, ultimately the final orders have been passed. 8. The delay in complying with the order of this Court, therefore, is explained by the respondents as above and inasmuch as the petitioners have failed to sustain these contempt cases, they are liable to be dismissed. The contempt cases are accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners shall have liberty to urge all their contentions as raised herein including the conduct of the respondents in the pending writ petitions, which they have already filed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 30, 2009 DSK