THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.31577 OF 2011 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus by declaring the notice, dated 11.11.2011, of respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to set aside the same and direct respondent No.3 to issue Form-I and Form-II Transport Permits as and when required to the petitioner after payment of royalty to respondent No.2. 2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner has been carrying out mining operations since 1976. Initially, the petitioner Firm had been granted the mining lease to an extent of 31.16 Hectors of forest land in Compartment No.77, Emboy Reserve Forest, Kurnool Division/District for extraction of Iron-Ore and Red Oxide. Again the petitioner applied for mining lease to an extent of 9.31 Hectors abutting the aforementioned land. He also applied for renewal of the mining lease of the above area and obtained sanction vide G.O.Ms.No.44 EFS& T (For.I) Department, dated 25.02.2010, in respect of 31.16 Hectors and doing the extraction work duly paying an amount of Rs.10.09 lakhs towards compensatory afforestation and Rs.195.0616 lakhs towards Net Prevent value and the same was acknowledged vide sanction proceedings, dated 22.03.2010. The petitioner Firm also applied for mining lease to an extent of 9.31 Hectors, which is adjacent to 31.06 Hectors, for which Stage-I approval has been sanctioned by the competent authority duly collecting an amount of Rs.43.00 lakhs from the petitioner firm and Stage-II approval i.e., direction to the State Government to issue the Government Order is pending due to the demise of the then Proprietor of the Company. As the above mentioned extents of forest lands are adjacent to each other, the petitioner Firm laid a temporary road for transportation of the extracted mineral through 9.31 Hectors area over which the petitioner Firm has got Stage-I approval for mining. For the purpose of laying the said temporary road, the petitioner Firm has invested huge amounts and it is well within the knowledge of the respondents. While so, on 11.11.2011, respondent No.1 issued the impugned notice stating that the petitioner Firm has been using 0.3 Hectors out of 9.31 Hectors of the leased area for transportation and that it is a serious violation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for short, ‘the Act’) and it is a serious mistake by the user agency side and instructed to stop the extraction of the mineral. The Forest Range Officer of the relevant area submitted a report to respondent No.1 elucidating that the said road was constructed by the petitioner firm long back and it is being used since long time and there is nothing new added to the said road and that every time, the transport permits are being issued showing the said road and hence, it is not a violation on the part of the petitioner firm, but respondent No.2 is not issuing the royalties/transport permits to the petitioner Firm due to which, the petitioner Firm, having remitted crores of rupees to the Government Exchequer, is suffering and unable to transport the mined iron ore of approximately 10,000 metric from an extent of 31.16 Hectors to the stock yard of the petitioner situated adjacent to the extent of pending renewal lease of an extent of 9.30 Hectors. The petitioner has been utilizing the existing road track since 1974 onwards. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Kurnool Division filed a detailed counter-affidavit stating that as per the plan approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Bangalore on 30.11.2000, under Appendix at Point No.4(v), “the petitioner (lessee) shall not construct any new road in Government Forest without the previous sanction of the Divisional Forest Officer”, but the petitioner formed the road in the adjacent area of 9.31 Hectors in which the mining lease grant was not renewed by the Government and hence, the action of the petitioner in forming the road is illegal. As Stage-II approval, which is pending at the Central Government, is also required for mining of the petitioner Firm, the petitioner Firm is not permitted to take up any kind of activity in the area of 9.31 Hectors. The petitioner is liable for suitable penalty as per Rules. The main reason for instructing the petitioner Firm to stop the mining activities in the mining lease area of 31.16 Hectors is that it has utilized the Reserve Forest Area for forming the road, which is a very serious lapse and violation of the Act and hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard both sides. 5. It is not in dispute before this Court that the petitioner Firm was granted a mining lease for mining of Iron Ore and Red Oxide to an extent of 31.16 Hectors originally in the year 1974. Thereafter, it was renewed for a period of 20 years with effect from 2010. The petitioner Firm, after mining the material, has been carrying the same to its dump yard situated at a considerable distance. It is not in dispute that the petitioner Firm is carrying on the mining material by forming a road through in an extent of 9.31 Hectors. The grant of lease of 9.31 Hectors is pending consideration by the Central Government. It is not the case of the Forest Officials that the petitioner Firm is doing illegal mining operations in the said 9.31 Hectors of land. It is also not in dispute that there is only a road for carrying the material from the leasehold land to the dump yard. So for several years, the petitioner Firm is said to have been carrying the material through the said road, which is passing through 9.31 Hectors of land. Except stating in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner Firm violated the conditions in the agreement, nothing has been stated in the affidavit that which condition of the lease agreement was violated by the petitioner Firm. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not issuing the permits to the petitioner Firm to carry the mining material to the dump yard is totally contrary to the agreement and having allowed it to carry the mining material through the road formed by it for the last thirty years, the respondents cannot deny the permits to the petitioner Firm for carrying the mining material. 6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed directing respondent No.2 to issue necessary permits, as and when required, to the petitioner Firm. It is also made clear that the petitioner Firm, while carrying the mining material, shall not cause any damage or destruction to the trees in the reserve forest. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 19th December, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.31577 OF 2011 Date:19.12.2011 AMD