IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 5443 of 2002 Between: Mirza Osman Baig S/o Mirza Ahmed Baig R/o 1-76,Chandanagar Village & Post, Sherlingaampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Deputy Director of Mines &Geology Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ order or direction ,declaring the action of the respondent in determining the quarry lease held by the petitioner for stone & metal over an extent of 2-000 hectares in Sy.No.343/1 of Ameenpur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District vide his Proceedings No.1479/Q/96 Dt: 18-9-2001 as illegal, arbitrary discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 5443 of 2002 08-04-2009 Oral Order: The order challenged is of the respondent dated 18- 09-2001 determining/cancelling four quarry leases including the one granted to the petitioner for an extent of 2-000 hectares in survey Nos. 343/1 and 327 of Ameenpur village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, for quarrying road metal. The petitioner assails this order inter alia on the ground that no notice under Rule 31 (xiii) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’) was issued which stipulates that two calendar months notice in writing should be given to the lessee before determining the quarry lease. It would appear from the narration in the impugned proceedings, that in 1996 the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology issued prohibitory orders for quarrying in Ameenpur village on the basis of complaints by neighbouring habitants of damage to their houses on account of the blasting operations in these quarries, threatening the safety of the inhabitants. The prohibitory orders issued by the Assistant Director were challenged before this Court and the writ petitions are stated to have been allowed for having been passed without opportunity or notice to the petitioners/lessees. Thereafter after notices to the lessees, fresh prohibitory orders under Rule 11(2)(c) of the Rules were passed on 30-12-2000 including in respect of the lease of the petitioner. The prohibitory orders are stated to be in force. While so, the State Government in a memo dated 22-11-2000 directed the Director of Mines and Geology to determine the quarry leases in Ameenpur village. Meanwhile the lessees including the petitioner preferred revisions before the Government against the prohibitory orders issued and the revisions have been dismissed by the State Government in 2001. In view of the orders of the Government in the memo dated 22-11-2000 the respondent on an assumption that the notice issued preceding the prohibitory orders was, issued the impugned order cancelling the lease of the petitioner, in purported exercise of powers under Rule 11 (2)(c) of the Rules. It is clear that Rule 31(xiii) of the Rules mandates two months notice to a lessee before cancellation or determination of the lease. The petitioner pleads that no such notice was issued and this assertion is not denied in any affidavit by the respondent. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 18-09-2001 cancelling the petitioner’s lease in exercise of power under Rule 31(xiii) of the Rules is invalid and is accordingly set aside. Though the petitioner cannot continue quarrying operations in view of the prohibitory orders, the lease must be treated as subsisting. It is however open to the respondent to pursue cancellation/determination of the lease after complying with the procedural and substantive requirements of law. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 08-04-2009 Pvks