IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13619 of 2005 Between: M/s. Sri. Bhargava Mines & Minerals Rep. By its petitioner- P.N. Venkataramana R/o. 5-1-8, Sarojini Devi Road, Tirupathi- 517501 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. Of India, Rep. by its Secretrary, Ministry Of Steel & Mines, Sastri Bhavan, New Delhi. 1100011. 2 The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretrary (Mines), Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat Bulidings, Hyderabad- 500022. .....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 a writ orders or direction more so one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejection of the Mining Lease application vide Memo No. 20518/MI(2)/98-2, industries & Commerce Mines (I) Department, dt. 08.02.1999 and the subsequent confirmation by the 1st respondent vide final order No. 14 of 2005 dt. 02.06.2005 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation Act) 1957 and the Rules made thereunder apart from being violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the same in time bound manner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.PANNALA.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Writ Petition No.13619 of 2005 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce appearing for the second respondent. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the first respondent, Final Order No.14 of 2005, dated 02.06.2005, rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner on the ground of laches and limitation, without adjudicating on merits. The petitioner applied for grant of a mining lease for an extent of Acs.100.00 in Survey Nos.257, 263, 271, 258 and 259 in Plot No.98 of Vellapalem village, Chillakur Mandal, Nellore District on 17.02.1995 for quarrying of Silica Sand, to the Director of Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Director of Mines & Geology by letter, dated 18.07.1998, addressed the District Collector, Nellore to furnish a report with regard to the classification and availability of the area for grant of a mining lease. The second respondent by a Memo, dated 22.10.1998, issued a show-cause notice under Rule 26(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short ‘the Rules’) (to the petitioner) to show cause why its mining lease application be not rejected for not attending the inspection and survey of the applied area, even after being afforded two opportunities for being present at the inspection and survey. According to the petitioner, by letter, dated 07.11.1998, it requested the second respondent to afford one more opportunity for inspection and survey, and by another letter, dated 05.01.1999, informed the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nellore about the change of its address. By letter, dated 14.10.2004, the petitioner requested to be informed the status of its mining lease application, dated 17.02.1995. Thereafter, the Director of Mines and Geology under a letter, dated 16.10.2004, informed the petitioner that its mining lease application (dated 17.02.1995) was already rejected under a Memo, dated 08.02.1999. The petitioner specifically alleges in para-5 of the writ petition that no notice of personal hearing was served by the second respondent to it before the purported order of rejection, dated 08.02.1999. Aggrieved by the rejection of its mining lease application by the second respondent, the petitioner preferred a revision to the first respondent under Rule 54 of the Rules and therein urged inter alia that the order of rejection, dated 08.02.1999, by the second respondent was never communicated to it. The first respondent by order, dated 07.12.2004, rejected the revision of the petitioner as barred by limitation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2071 of 2005, which was allowed by this Court by the judgment, dated 21.01.2005, as under. “Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the impugned order dated 07.12.2004 is set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the Revision Petition afresh after due notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Thereafter, the first respondent entertained and considered the revision of the petitioner de novo and passed the impugned order rejecting the revision as barred by time. The first respondent at para-7 of the impugned order sets out the response of the second respondent to the revision of the petitioner, wherein it is specifically recorded that the second respondent-State adopts the position; that the mining lease application of the petitioner was not rejected on account of the petitioner not attending the survey but was rejected since the petitioner did not appear for hearing when the petitioner’s mining lease application was taken up for consideration by the second respondent. While rejecting the revision on the ground of delay and limitation, at para-11 of the impugned order, the first respondent records that the petitioner instituted the revision 5 ½ years after the impugned order, dated 08.02.1999, was passed by the second respondent (rejecting the mining lease application of the petitioner). Though the petitioner had taken the specific plea before the first respondent that the second respondent’s order, dated 08.02.1999, had never been communicated to it till the intimation under the letter of the Director of Mines and Geology, dated 16.10.2004, the first respondent rejected the revision of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was lax in expeditiously pursuing the revision against the order of rejection by the State Government, for about 5 ½ years. It was only through the Director of Mines and Geology’s letter, dated 16.10.2004 (the petitioner contends), the order of rejection was communicated and the petitioner filed the revision to the first respondent on 21.11.2004. If these dates are to be factually correct, the revision preferred by the petitioner before the first respondent is well within the time. It is axiomatic that an administrative order or a quasi judicial order for that matter, assumes vitality only when communicated to the addressee. An uncommunicated order of rejection of a mining lease application by the State Government is no order in the eye of law. It is the petitioner’s specific case before the first respondent as well as in this writ petition that the order of rejection by the second respondent, dated 08.02.1999, came to its notice only through the letter of the Director of Mines and Geology, dated 16.10.2004. The first respondent’s revisional order does not address this issue or analyse this statement and claim of the petitioner. This is the fundamental fallacy in the impugned order. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition not only in para-5 but also in ground No.E of the grounds of challenge to the impugned order, the petitioner states that it came to know of the order of rejection by the State Government, dated 08.02.1999, only on 16.10.2004. On behalf of the second respondent, a counter affidavit is filed by one Sri A.Dayakar Reddy, the Assistant Secretary to Government, Industries & Commerce Department, authorized to represent the second respondent. In reply to ground No.E of the grounds of challenge, the answering respondent (the second respondent) states that a show-cause notice, dated 22.10.1998 was served on the petitioner by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due and the rejection order, dated 08.02.1999, was also sent to the petitioner by Registered Post. In the context of the factual conflict vis-à-vis the petitioner’s specific plea of not having been communicated the order of rejection, dated 08.02.1999, till October, 2004 and the averment per contra in the counter affidavit of the second respondent that the rejection order was also sent to the petitioner by Registered Post, this Court called upon the learned Government Pleader for Industries & Commerce to produce the relevant record, which would disclose the date of communication of the order of rejection, dated 08.02.1999, to the petitioner. It requires to be noted that the counter affidavit on behalf of the second respondent, dated 26.12.2005, has not been verified in the manner required and postulated by the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977, framed by this Court. The counter affidavit does not aver which paragraph is based on the knowledge of the deponent, which on legal advice, which on information and which on the basis of perusal of the records by the deponent. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Industries & Commerce places before this Court a Memo addressed to the learned Government Pleader by the Secretary to the Government, Industries & Commerce Department, dated 18.02.2009, which states that “in spite of best efforts are made, the relevant disposal could not be traced out. It is presumed that during the Clean and Green Programme and also while shifting the department of I & C from “A” Block to ‘D’ Block certain old records are found missing and the record relating to present subject matter may be one of them”. Since there is no way of verifying the petitioner’s categorical assertion that the order of rejection by the second respondent, dated 08.02.1999, was not communicated to it till 16.10.2004 in the context of the second respondent having brought about a situation of the records in a pending litigation being lost, this Court must infer that had the record been produced, the averment of the petitioner would have been buttressed. On the aforesaid analysis, it must be concluded that the petitioner was communicated the order of rejection only through the covering letter of the Director of Mines and Geology, dated 16.10.2004, and since the petitioner had preferred the revision to the first respondent on 21.11.2004, the revision is filed within time. Rule 54 of the Rules enjoins that any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Government or other authority in exercise of the power conferred on it by the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 or the Rules may, within a period of three months of the date of communication of the order to him, apply to the Central Government for revision. In any event, the proviso to Rule 54 of the Rules enables an application to be entertained even after the period of three months if the applicant satisfies the Central Government that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within time. In the context of facts of this case, since the revision preferred by the petitioner to the first respondent is seen to be within the period of three months from the date of communication of the order of rejection, dated 08.02.1999, to it, (vide the Director of Mines and Geology’s letter, dated 16.10.2004), the revision being within time ought to have been entertained and disposed of by the first respondent on merits, without rejecting the same on laches and limitation. On the aforesaid analysis, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 02.06.2005, is unsustainable and is accordingly quashed. Before parting with the case, this Court considers it appropriate to record its disapprobation of the negligence of the second respondent in not maintaining the relevant litigative records during the pendency of a litigation and would also place on record the laid back attitude of the agents of the second respondent in filing affidavits without appropriate verification as mandated by the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 of this Court. We hope and trust that the concerned agents and legal representatives of the second respondent will exhibit greater diligence to litigation and deference to litigative procedures than apparent in this case. The writ petition is allowed as above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dt.20.02.2009 VGB