IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.11641 of 2009 Between: V. Krishna Prasad ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce (Mines-II) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and three others ..... RESPONDENTS ORDER: W.V.M.P.No.2619 of 2009 and W.V.M.P.No.3442 of 2009 filed by the respondents in the writ petition are coming up for hearing and at this stage a request had been made by the counsel on record for the final disposal of the writ petition and hence, the writ petition being itself disposed of finally. 2. Respondent No.4 filed W.V.M.P.No.3442 of 2009 and in fact respondent No.4 was impleaded by virtue of an order dated 26-10-2009 made in W.P.M.P.No.22802 of 2009. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in writ petition filed W.V.M.P.No.2619 of 2009. 3. Sri K.V. Subrahmanya Narusu, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the material papers placed before this court and further had pointed out to the proceedings dated 23-09-2008, 09-04-2009 and 17-04-2009 as well and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances it cannot be said that there was a due application of mind and hence the proceeding under challenge cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also made a request for the refund of the amounts deposited. 4. The learned GP for Mines and Geology had taken this court through the contents of the counter-affidavit and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition cannot be granted. 5. Sri Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel representing respondent No.4 also had taken this court through the contents of the counter-affidavit and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as the petitioner had no enforceable legal right hence, dismiss the writ petition. 6. Heard the counsel. 7. The Writ Petition is filed praying for the relief of writ of Mandamus, declaring the order of the 2nd respondent herein in Proceedings No.20629/R3-2/2006, dated 17-04-2009 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the 1st respondent herein to consider his representation dated NIL made to the 1st respondent herein and pass appropriate orders after giving him an opportunity of being heard and pass such other suitable orders. 8. It is stated that in pursuance of the application of the petitioner dated 09-05-2001 to the second respondent herein, requesting to grant a prospecting licence of Black Granite over an extent of 25 hectares in Sy.Nos.903, 904, 907, 908, 911, 912 and 915 of Pothakanur village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District, for a period of two years, the Director of Mines and Geology, the 2nd respondent herein after obtaining the report from the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Markapur, Ongole, the third respondent herein, granted prospecting licence for black granite over an extent of 18.895 hectares in Sy.Nos.907(P), 908, 911, 912 (P) and 915(P) of Pothakanur Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District, under Rule 12(5)(a)(i) of A.P.M.M.C. Rules, 1966 by his Proceedings No.16607/R3(2)/ 2001, dated 21-03-2002. Having obtained the prospecting licence, the petitioner started prospecting operations within the area allotted to him. Having executed prospecting licence deed on 28-06-2002, subsequently, he filed application for grant of quarry lease in respect of the said land by paying an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- as directed by the third respondent herein by his proceedings No.1282/Q/06, dated 23-06- 2006 and also paid several other amounts making a total of Rs.16.00 lakhs under different heads from 2001 to 2006. The third respondent herein having inspected the said land on 03-07-2006 found that, he had carried on the prospecting operations as required. On the said recommendation of the third respondent, the second respondent by his proceedings No.20629/R3-2/2006, dated 10-03-2008 granted a quarry lease for the above said land for a period of 20 years as per Rule 12 (5) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and other terms and conditions under Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 and A.P.M.M.C. Rules, 1966 and subsequent Government orders and executive instructions issued thereupon from time to time imposing various conditions as mentioned therein. In pursuance of the said quary lease granted to him, the third respondent directed him vide his Lr.No.1282/Q/06, dated 02-04-2008 to pay amounts under different heads making a total of Rs.20,35,863/- and further directed to submit different forms/affidavits, etc for the purpose of execution of lease deed. Having received the said letter, he submitted a representation dated 07-05-2008 to the second respondent praying for grant of extension of time for complying with the requirements as stated supra. Having considered his request, the second respondent herein by his proceedings No.20629/R3-2/2006, dated 03-06-2008 granted time for a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of his order for complying with the said conditions and execution of quary lease deed. However, as he became sick and not able to raise the required amounts due to ill-health, financial constraints and other local problems, he made another representation dated Nil to the second respondent which was received by him on 03-07- 2008, seeking further extension of time for executing the lease deed. The second respondent herein in pursuance of his above representation, by his proceedings No.20629/R3-2/2006, dated 18- 07-2008 granted further extension of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order for execution of lease deed. It is further stated in his order that, no further extension would be granted for executing the lease deed. 9. It is also stated that due to various reasons which are beyond his control i.e., financial constraints, ill-health and local conditions, the petitioner made a representation to the Government of A.P., the first respondent herein, requesting for further extension of time for executing the lease deed. In pursuance of his said representation, the first respondent herein by their proceedings in Memo No.11717/M.II(1)/ 2008-1, dated 23-09-2008 sent his aforesaid representation together with its enclosures to the second respondent herein to take necessary action in the matter under intimation to him. 10. It is further stated that with grant surprise and dismay, the first respondent by their Memo No.4421/M.II(1)/2009, dated 09-04- 2009 basing on an exparte report submitted by the second respondent making several allegations against the petitioner and requesting the first respondent to reject his request for grant of further extension of time for execution of the quarry lease deed for the extent and area stated above, requested the second respondent to take necessary action as per rules in the matter of revocation of grant orders issued by his favour even without giving him any opportunity of making representation against the report alleged to have been submitted by the second respondent about which he had no notice of. 11. It is also stated that the first respondent did not pass any orders on his representation for further extension of time as per law. However, the second respondent by his Proceedings No.20629/R3-2/2006, dated 17-04-2009 revoked the grant orders dated 10-03-2008 under Rule 12(5)(e) of A.P.M.M.C. Rules, 1966 and further forfeited the deposit amounts paid by him at the time of filing the application. The said order is being impugned in the present writ petition. 12. Further it is stated that against the proceedings dated 18-07-2008 of the second respondent stating that, no further extension of time would be granted, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent seeking further extension of time for executing the lease deed, explaining the reasons and difficulties for not executing the lease deed within the extended period. The first respondent should have considered his representation dispassionately by exercising their mind and passed appropriate orders. Instead, the first respondent requested the second respondent to pass necessary orders in the matter. The said proceedings of the first respondent amounts to abdication of power vested in them. It is also stated that the second respondent who had absolutely no power or authority to deal with the representation passed an order revoking the grant orders. It is further stated that the impugned order of the second respondent is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction as he had absolutely no power and authority to deal with the representation made by the petitioner to the first respondent herein for giving further extension of time for executing the lease deed. 13. It is also stated that by virtue of the impugned orders, the petitioner suffered a huge financial loss and damage to the extent of more than Rs.2.00 crore for carrying on prospecting operations such as digging pits, removal of waste boulders, raising barbed wire fencing, etc. The petitioner is in possession of the aforesaid land protecting it from encroachments, etc. for a long time. Unless, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is suspended, some third party will be granted lease, whereby all his efforts having spent his money and mite for all these years will become futile and he will be put to grave loss and hardship thereby. The petitioner had been given an opportunity by the first respondent herein, he would have explained the circumstances under which he was not able to execute the lease deed within the stipulated period, instead, the impugned orders were passed by the second respondent herein who had absolutely no power or authority to deal with his representation. 14. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 it is stated that it is a fact that the petitioner had applied for grant of prospecting Licence for Black Granite over an extent of 25 Hectares in Sy.Nos.903, 904, 907, 908, 911, 912 and 915 of Potakamuru Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District for a period of two years vide his application dated 09-05-2001. 15. Further it is stated that the survey and inspection was conducted on 18-06-2001. After survey and demarcation the area came to an extent of hectares 18.895 as against the applied area of Hectares 25.000. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole had recommended the same to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad for grant. Subsequently, the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad vide Proceeding No.16607/R3-(2)/2001, dated 21-03-2002 had granted the prospecting License as per rule 12 5 (a)(i) of APMMC Rules, 1966 and read with Rule 4 of GCDR, 1999 for Black Granite in Sy.Nos.907(p), 908, 911, 912 (p) and 915 (p) of Potakamur village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District over an extent of 18.895 hectare for a period of 2 years in favour of the petitioner. 16. It is also averred that the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole through the letter No.3652/Q/01, dated 16-04-2002 had requested the petitioner to execute the license deed within stipulated period of 60 days i.e., 12-05-2002. But the petitioner had not executed the license deed within the stipulated period and applied for extension. After availing 3 extension periods each covering 30 days, the petitioner had executed the license deed on 28-06-2004 by paying Rs.5,95,835/- to Government under various heads and license was in force from 28-06-2004 to 27-06-2006. During the license period the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.9,81,935/- to the Government. 17. It is also stated that the petitioner had applied for grant of quarry lease for Black Granite in the above said P.L. area previously conducted by the petitioner on 23-06-2006 by duly depositing an amount Rs.1,90,000/- in the form of crossed Demand Draft obtained in favour of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Markapur as per Rule 12(5)(a)(i) of APMMC Rules, 1966. Subsequently, the survey and inspection was conducted on 03-07-2006 and the Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Markapur had submitted the proposals to Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad for grant of quarry in favour of the petitioner. The Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad in the proceedings No.20629/R3-2/06, dated 10-03-2008 had granted a quarry lease for Black Granite over an extent of Hectares 18.895 in Sy.Nos.907 (p), 908, 911, 912 (p) and 915 (p) of Potakamur Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District for a period of 20 years in favour of the petitioner Sri V. Krishna Prasad and directed the third respondent to take necessary action to execute the lease deed within the stipulated period of 60 days from the date of grant. Accordingly, the third respondent vide letter No.1282/Q/06, dated 02-04-2008 had requested the petitioner to execute lease deed within stipulated period of 60 days i.e., 10-05-2008 by paying the total amount of Rs.20,35,813/- under different heads and submitted the necessary documents for the purpose of execution of the lease deed. But the petitioner had not executed the lease deed within the stipulated period of 60 days. Further the petitioner had applied for extension time for execution of the lease deed. Accordingly, vide Proceedings No.20629/R3-2/06, dated 03-06-2008 the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad had given 30 days extension time to execute the lease deed. The petitioner had failed to execute the lease within the extended period of 30 days and applied for another extension. The Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad in the proceedings No.20629/R3-2/06, dated 18-07-2008 had given second extension time of 30 days under Rule 12(5)(e) of APMMC Rules, 1966. 18. Further it is stated that even after expiry of second extension period the petitioner had not executed the lease deed. Further the petitioner had filed revision before the Government on 25-08-2008 for another extension. Subsequently, the Government vide Memo No.11717/M-II(1)/ 2008, dated 23-09-2008 while sending the representation requested the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad to take necessary action in the matter. 19. It is also stated that the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad through file No.20629/R3-2/06 had submitted a report to Government that it seems that the grantee was trying to block the area without executing the lease deed and going on requesting for grant of extension of time. Further the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad had requested the Government to reject the request made by the grantee Sri.V.Krishna Prasad for grant of further extension of time i.e., 3rd extension period and communicate the orders so as to enable him to revoke the grant orders issued in favour of the petitioner Sri V. Krishna Prasad as per Rule 12 5(e) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. After careful examination of the matter, the Government vide Memo No.4421/M-II(1)/2009-1, dated 09-04-2009 had requested the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad to take necessary action in the matter for revocation of grant orders. 20. It is also stated that through the letter No.1282/Q/06, dated 02-01-2009 the third respondent had submitted revocation proposals to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad on grant order in view of non-execution of the lease deed. The Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad vide Proceedings No.20629/R3-2/06, dated 15-04-2009 had revoked the grant orders under Rule 12 5(e) of APMMC Rules, 1966 and keeping in view of the Government Memo No.4421/M-II(1)/2009-1, dated 09-04-2009. 21. It is also averred that the action taken by the first, second and third respondents is correct and not arbitrary and not illegal as the petitioner was not utilizing the extension periods granted previously. Further as per the Rule 12 5(e) of APMMC Rules, 1966, the third respondent had submitted revocation proposals to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad vide letter No.1282/Q/06, dated 02-01-2009 in view of non-execution of lease deed even after expiry of second extension period and the same was revoked by the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad vide proceedings No.20629/R3-2/2006, dated 15-04-2009 keeping in view of the Government Memo No.4421/M-II(1)/2009-1, dated 09-04-2009. Hence, the actions of second respondent are within the eye of law and as per the rules. 22. It is further averred that M/s.Umamaheswara Granites, Hyderabad had filed application on 29-01-2009 for the same area and the third respondent submitted proposals to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad on 25-04-2009 for grant of quarry lease for Black Granite over an extent of 18.895 Hectares in Sy.Nos.907(p), 908, 911, 912(p) and 915(p) of Potakamur village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District for a period of 20 years with subject to condition that non filing of revision application by the petitioner. Further, the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad had granted the quarry lease for Black Granite vide Proceedings No.8443/R3-1/09, dated 02-05-2009 over the same area. The grantee had not executed the lease deed so far. It is the stand taken in the counter-affidavit of respondent Nos.1 to 3. 23. Respondent No.4 also filed counter-affidavit almost on similar lines and further pleaded how he would be effected by virtue of the interim order granted by this court. 24. In the light of the specific stand taken in the counter-affidavit of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and also in the light of the counter- affidavit filed by respondent No.4 this court is thoroughly satisfied that there is no illegality in the proceedings under challenge and the writ petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed in the writ petition. 25. Accordingly, the writ petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. 26. However, in the peculiar fact situation liberty is given to the petitioner to agitate his rights, if any, relating to the amounts deposited, in accordance with law. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J November 5, 2009. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.11641 of 2009 November 5, 2009