IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 25956 of 2007 Between: Harizana Yeddula Lakshmi Devi W/o Harizana Yeddula Venkateswarlu Kamalapuram Villae, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce (M-1) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad. 3 Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Mines Department Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4 N. Fayaz S/o Abdul Rahim SBI, Nandyal, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Certiorari to call for all the related records pertaining to impugned proceedings vide G.O.Ms. No. 191 IND., & Comm., (M.I) Dept, dated 19-07-2007 issued by the 1st Respondent and consequential impugned memo No. 39540/R4-2/2006 dt.06-10- 2007 issued by the 2nd Respondent and quash the same, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.K.Rathanga Pani Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, G.P. for Mines and Geology and Sri P.Pradeep Kumar Reddy The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA W.P.No.25956 of 2007 ORDER: 1. The Writ Petition is filed for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for all the related records pertaining to impugned proceedings vide G.O.Ms.No.191, Industries and Commerce (M.I) Department dated 19-7-2007 issued by the 1st respondent and consequential impugned memo No.39540/R4-2/2006 dated 6-10-2007 issued by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same and to pass such other suitable orders. 2. Heard Sri Rathangapani Reddy, Counsel representing the writ petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce representing respondents 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Pradeep Kumar Reddy, Counsel representing the 4th respondent. 3. Counter affidavits had been filed by respondents 3 and 4. 4. Sri Rathangapani Reddy, the learned Counsel had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and also the counter affidavits and would maintain that in the light of the nature of allegations the petitioner is a consenting party to the transfer of mining lease cannot be believed. 5. On the contrary, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavits and in the light of the material produced before the authority action had been taken and hence there is illegality. 6. Sri Pradeep Kumar Reddy, Counsel representing the 4th respondent would maintain that the petitioner is having alternative remedy and even otherwise the respondents-authorities had offered reasonable opportunity of being heard and the petitioner intentionally avoided to make appearance and in such a case, the question of disposing the alleged representation again would not arise. 7. The relief prayed for in the Writ Petition already had been specified supra. It is the case of the petitioner that after granting mining lease for Dolomite in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner had been operating the mining and for the assistance the petitioner appointed 4th respondent Shaik Mohiddin as Manager. The 4th respondent while acting as Manager obtained the signatures of the petitioner on blank papers by representing that they are required for the purpose of running day to day business of the mining. It is also further stated that after some time, the petitioner realized the fraudulent and deceiving nature of the 4th respondent and immediately removed him from the post of Manager. It is further stated that the petitioner came to know that the 4th respondent by misusing the signatures obtained from the petitioner for the purpose of running the business, taking advantage of the petitioner’s illiteracy had fabricated documents to the effect that the petitioner had transferred the mining lease in his favour. Immediately the petitioner gave a representation to the 3rd respondent dated 25-7-2007 clearly stating that the petitioner had not transferred lease in favour of the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent by fabricating her documents seems to have applied for transfer and the same should not be accepted as the 4th respondent committed an act of fraud by taking advantage of the petitioner’s illiteracy. It is also further stated that to the petitioner’s shock and surprise, the petitioner received the impugned Memo No.39540/R4-2/2006 dated 6-10-2007 from the 2nd respondent stating that the 1st respondent had issued impugned G.O.Ms.No.191, Industries and Commerce (M.I) Department dated 19-7-2007 permitting transfer of the mining lease held by the petitioner in favour of the 4th respondent and in pursuance of the same, the petitioner came forward to execute the transfer lease deed failing which the 3rd respondent will be executing the transfer lease deed. The impugned G.O. and the Memo are prima facie illegal and unwarranted. Even though in all the representations of the petitioner including the one dated 25-7-2007, the petitioner categorically stated that she had not transferred her mining lease in favour of the 4th respondent and he committed fraud by fabricating the documents by taking advantage of the petitioner’s illiteracy. It is also further stated that without considering the representation of the petitioner and without verifying the genuineness of the documents submitted by the 4th respondent, without following Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960 which clearly envisages that without previous consent from the Government, no lease shall be transferred and the transfer deed should be in Form ‘O’. The issuance of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.191 is nothing but arbitrary exercise of power for the ulterior reasons. In such circumstances, the petitioner is left with no other alternative except to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 8. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit with the following averments. It is stated that as can be seen from the records the authorized agent of the lessee Mr.Shaik Mohiddin obtained permits and filed returns and made correspondence with the Department on behalf of the petitioner. Subsequently transfer application was filed on 21-11-2006 by the lessee requesting transfer of mining lease in favour of Mr.N.Fayaz s/o.S.Abdul Raheem on the ground that she does not have sufficient experience, enough source of finance and due to continuous ill-health she was unable to develop the mine and decided to transfer the lease. The transfer application along with the notarized affidavits of the transferor and transferee were received on 29-11-2006. Subsequently the 3rd respondent submitted proposals to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad vide Letter No.3955/M4/2004 dated 30-11-2006 for transfer of mining lease in favour of Sri N.Fayaz for unexpired portion of the lease period i.e., 20-6-2026. It is also further stated that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.191, dated 19-7-2007 accorded permission for transfer of the mining lease held by Smt.H.Y.Lakshmi Devi in favour of Mr.N.Fayaz for Dolomite over an extent of Acs.11.25 (4.55 Hectares) for the unexpired portion of the lease period i.e., upto 20-6-2006. Subsequently the 3rd respondent received representation of the petitioner on 30-7-2007 stating that one Mr.Mohiddin had taken signatures on blank papers from the petitioner for obtaining permissions and they are not aware of the proposal of transfer and the permission given by the Government for transfer of mining lease held by her in favour of Mr.N.Fayaz and the petitioner further submitted an affidavit that she is physically healthy and intends to continue the mining operations and decided to cancel the power of attorney given in favour of Mr.Shaik Mohiddin. It is also further stated that the representation made by the petitioner to the District Collector, Kurnool had been endorsed to the 3rd respondent vide letter No.Rc.E7/2653/2007 dated 5-9-2007 for further enquiry. The letter dated 24-8-2007 informed the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad for taking necessary action interest matter. The Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad vide Memo No.39540/R4-2/2006 dated 6-10-2007 informed the 3rd respondent to issue notice to the transferor Smt.H.Y.Lakshmi Devi, the petitioner, by R.P.A.D. by informing all the above matter asking her to attend the office within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice for execution of transfer lease deed failing which the transfer lease deed shall be executed in her absence with the transferee. Accordingly the 3rd respondent by letter dated 16-10-2007 informed the petitioner to attend the office within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice and the said notice was received by the petitioner personally on 17-10-2007 and she had submitted a reply on 20-10-2007 requesting to cancel the transfer order. It is also further stated that the adjudication of the complaint made by the petitioner is outside the powers of the 3rd respondent and hence no orders could be passed on the allegations of fabrication etc., made by the petitioner. On 31-10-2007 the transferee had submitted the requisite documents and the transfer lease deed was executed in favour of the transferee Mr.N.Fayaz over an extent of Acs.11.25 for the unexpired portion of the lease deed upto 20-6-2006. Since then Mr.N.Fayaz had taken possession of the land and commenced the mining operations in the petition scheduled area. It is also further stated that the transfer of mining lease is in accordance with the provisions of MM (D&R) Act 1957 and Rule 37 of M.C. Rules 1960. Hence the Writ Petition is misconceived, not maintainable and devoid of merits. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent almost similar averments had been made as in the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent and specific stand had been taken that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of proper party. Further specific stand had been taken that the petitioner is having an effective alternative remedy in para-8 of the counter affidavit. 10. As can be seen from the respective stands taken by the parties, it appears to be more or less a factual controversy and these aspects cannot be thoroughly gone into in a Writ Petition of this nature. However, in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, though it is stated that at a particular point of time opportunity had been given, in the light of the peculiar fact situation, let the petitioner make a fresh representation to the 3rd respondent in this regard if the petitioner is so advised within a period of two weeks from today and let the 3rd respondent dispose of the same in accordance with law taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances within a period of eight weeks thereafter if necessary by putting the other affected parties also on notice. 11. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _________________ Justice P.S. Narayana Date : 20-8-2009 AM