IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.Nos. 27717 of 2007 & 2212 of 2008 W.P.No.27717 of 2007 Between: 1 K. Savarni W/o. Late Sri K. Sridhar Reddy R/o. 13/25, 2A, 2nd Floor, Krishna Bai Street, T. Nagar, Chennai. 2 Miss K. Nithya D/o. Late Sri K. Sridhar Reddy Occ: Presently studying in U.S.A. C/o. 13/25, 2A, 2nd Floor,Vinod Castle, Krishna Bai Street, T. Nagar, Chennai. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary (Mines) Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Mines & Geology, 8th Floor, B.R.K.R. Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Guntur Region, Near Hari Hara Mahal, Guntur. 4 The Asst. Director of Mines & Geology, Plot No.4, Shanti Nagar, Gandhinagar, Near Dycoss Road Centre, Nellore. 5 Smt. A. Indira W/o.A.V.S. Reddy, I.A.S, Residing at Plot No. 30-C, M.L.C. Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned Proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.331, Industries & Commerce (M1) Department dt. 3-12-2007 of the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction contrary to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act 1957 and the Rules made thereunder and consequently direct the respondents to maintain status quo ante pendig disposal of the adjudication of legal rights between the petitioners and the 5th Respondent before the appropriate forum in the interest of law and justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.V.CHALAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY W.P.No.2212 of 2008 Between: 1 Dwarakanadh M.Reddy, s/o late M.Kondandarami Reddy, R/o Vybhav Apartments, Flat No.1-C, Magunta Layout, Nellore. 2 Magunta Sivakota Reddy, s/o late M.Kodandarami Reddy, R/o Sri Balaji Tower, Flat No.501, Gomathi Nagar, Nellore. 3 Siddavaram Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy, S/o late S.Dasaradharami Reddy, R/o Dargamitta, Nellore. 4 Siddavarapu V.Ramalinga Reddy, S/o late S.Dasaradharami Reddy, R/o Dargamitta, Nellore. 5 Siddavarapu Kamakshamma, W/o Dasaradharami Reddy, R/o Dargamitta, Nellore. 6 Magunta Sai Lakshmi, W/o late Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy, R/o Nishanti Apartments, Ramamurthy nagar, Nellore. 7 Devireddy Vishnuprasad Reddy, S/o D.Kondarami Reddy, R/o No.10, Vasu Street, H-1, Stouch Stone Apartment, Kilpark, Chennai. 8 magunta Suvarnamma, W/o late Magunta Mahidhar Reddy, R/o Bangala Garden, Nawabpet, Nellore. 9 Siddavarapu Venkata Swarup Reddy, s/o S.Madhusudan Reddy, R/o Dargamitta, Nellore. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Industries and Commissioner, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director, Mines and Geology, 8th Floor, BRKR Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Plot No.4, Shanthi Nagar, Ghandhi Nagar, Near Dycoss Road Centre, Nellore. 4 Smt.A.Indira, W/o A.V.S.Reddy, I.A.S., R/O plot No.30-C MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 5 Smt.K.Savarni, w/o late KI.Sridhar Reddy, r/o 13/25, 2A Second Floor, Krishna Bai Street, T.Nagar, Chennai. 6 Miss K.Nitya, D/o late K.Sridhar Reddy, R/o 13/25, 2A, Second Floor, Krishna Bai Street, T.Nagar, Chennai. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an order or writ one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for records in G.O.Ms.No.331, Industries and Commerce (MI) Department, dt.03-12-2007 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, without jurisdiction contrary to the provisions of Mines & Minerals (Development& Regulation) Act, 1957 and pass suchother order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.N.SHOBA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.Nos.27717 of 2007 & 2212 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: In these two writ petitions, common questions of law and fact arise for consideration, therefore they are being disposed of by this common order. In both the writ petitions, G.O.Ms.No.331, Industries and Commerce (MI) Department dated 3.12.2007 issued by first respondent is under challenge on the ground that the same is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder and consequently direct the respondents to maintain status quo ante. The petitioners in W.P.No.27717 of 2007 are the daughter-in-law and grand daughter of one late Smt.K.Atchamma and petitioners in W.P.No.2212 of 2008, who are (9) in number are said to be partners of a partnership firm namely M/s Rajeswari Mica Mine, to which the said Atchamma was also a partner. According to the petitioners in W.P.No.27717 of 2007, as early as on 10.7.1961, a partnership firm was constituted in the name and style of M/s Rajeswari Mica Mine and the petitioners are the partners of the said firm. The said partnership firm had originally acquired mining lease for mineral- mica in an extent of Ac.8-97 cents in Sy.No.17/5 and 20/2 in Perumallapadu village, Sydapuram mandal, Nellore district vide G.O.Ms.No.982, Industries and Commerce Department, Government of A.P. dated 9.7.1964. The said mining lease was renewed from time to time and the last renewal was made vide G.O.Ms.No.45, Industries and Commerce (MI) Department dated 10.2.2006 for a period of 20 years with effect from 9.11.2002. The partnership firm also acquired another mining lease in an extent of Ac.7-92 cents in Sy.Nos.20/1-A1, 20/1-B and 21/1-A2 of Perumallapadu village, Sydapuram mandal, Nellore district for extraction of minerals-mica, q uartz and feldspar vide G.O.Ms.No.591, Industries and Commerce (MI) Department dated 28.11.2000 and the said lease is valid for a period of 20 years from 24.11.2001 to 23.11.2021. According to the petitioners, originally one M.Kodandarami Reddy and his brother M.Ramachandra Reddy jointly held seven annas share, Smt.K.Atchamma held three annas share, D.Kodandarami Reddy and Smt.S.Kamakshama held one anna share each, all put together five annas share in the said partnership firm and accordingly they have been sharing the profits and losses. While that being so, Smt.Konduru Atchamma has transferred one anna share out of three annas in favour of her son Konduru Sridhar Reddy on 11.6.1990. Further, Smt.Konduru Atchamma who was holding two annas share in the firm, gave an affidavit on 13.5.2002 duly attested by Notary and Advocate expressing her willingness to retire from the said partnership firm voluntarily by giving her two annas share to her son Konduru Sridhar Reddy and her grand daughter Konduru Nitya, D/o Konduru Sridhar Reddy i.e., each one anna share, out of love and affection. The husband of first petitioner Konduru Sridhar Reddy and second petitioner Nitya have submitted affidavits to the said effect and requested the firm M/s Rajeswari Mica Mine to allot the said two annas share in their favour by retiring Smt.K.Atchamma from the said partnership firm. Accordingly, they were admitted as partners in the said firm and partnership deed was reconstituted on 7.11.2002. Thus, K.Sridhar Reddy was holding two annas share and K.Nithya (grand daughter) was holding one anna’s share. The said partnership firm was subsequently reconstituted on 6.6.2003 due to the death of Magunta Mahidhar Reddy and Srinivasulu Reddy. Thereafter K.Sridhar Reddy died on 18.10.2003 and the said partnership firm was reconstituted including K.Savarni, W/o K.Sridhar Reddy (first petitioners herein) as one of the partners for two annas share of said Sridhar Reddy on 31.10.2003. This was within the knowledge of Smt.K.Atchamma. Further, Smt.K.Atchamma by way of a comprehensive relinquishment deed relinquished her share in various properties including her 1/3rd share in the estate left behind by her only son late K.Sridhar Reddy in favour of first petitioner. All the above said changes were intimated to the Income Tax Department by the partnership firm from time to time. In the year 2001, as some of the partners passed away more particularly M.Kodandarami Reddy, the Department of Mines and Geology was informed of the same and the fourth respondent issued proceedings No.2251/M2/88 dated 4.5.2001 wherein the change of name from M.Kodandarami Reddy and others to M.Dwarakanath Reddy and seven others was accepted. As the mining lease period was coming to an end, the firm M/s Rajeswari Mica Mine filed application for second renewal of mining lease vide application dated 27.3.2001 and the same was renewed by the first respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 10.2.2006 for a period of 20 years with effect from 9.11.2002. As per the reconstituted partnership deed dated 31.10.2003, the following are the partners holding shares as detailed below: 1. M.Sailakshmi 2. M.Sivakota Reddy 3. Dwarakanath M.Reddy 4. M.Suvarnama 7 annas share 5. S.Ramalinga Reddy 6. S.V.Bhaskar Reddy 7. S.V.Swarop Reddy S/o Madhusudhan Reddy 8. S.Kamakshamma 5 annas share 9. D.Vishnuprassad Reddy 1 anna’s share 10. K.Savarni 2 annas share 11. K.Nitya 1 anna’s share ------------------ TOTAL 16 annas share ------------------ The years 2001 to 2006 went of peacefully without any hindrance from any quarter and the firm filed income tax returns showing the changes brought about in the firm from time to time. While that being so, Smt.K.Atchama, mother-in-law of first petitioner and grand mother of second petitioner vide her letter dated 14.6.2006 informed the second respondent to transfer her leasehold rights hitherto held by her in favour of her daughter Smt.Indira W/o A.V.S. Reddy (fifth respondent herein) on the ground of ill-health and geriatric problems. In view of the said letter, second respondent issued Memo No.19622/R3(2)/2006 dated 20.6.2006 and the fourth respondent was constrained to issue a notice No.2551/M2/88 dated 12.7.2006 as to why the dispute raised by Smt.K.Atchamma should not be sorted out by way of mutual discussions failing which it tantamounts to grabbing the rights hitherto held by her. The firm M/s Rajeswari Mica Mines gave a comprehensive reply dated 26.7.2006 informing that the gift given by her has been acted upon and that the partnership deed has been reconstituted and that much water has flown more particularly even Income Tax returns of the firm have been filed for the last several years before the Central Government apart from giving share in profits and losses to the petitioners. Further, the first petitioner gave representations vide comprehensive letters dated 11.4.2007 and 16.4.2007 addressed to the first respondent with a copy marked to second respondent informing the status of her legal rights and as to how the resourceful son-in-law of Smt.K.Atchamma and her daughter are trying to grab the property, which had already been gifted to her family. Further, the first petitioner also gave an affidavit on 17.7.2007 to the first respondent pointing out that the gifts given by the donor have been accepted by the donee and the same have been acted upon. Further, the law does not permit the donor to retract or nullify the gifts made in favour of donee. In spite of comprehensive reply given by the petitioner, the first respondent for various extraneous reasons not known to law, has proceeded to pass the impugned G.O.Ms.No.331 dated 3.12.2007 transferring three annas share held by Smt.K.Atchama in favour of fifth respondent. Hence this writ petition. In the second writ petition i.e. W.P.No.2212 of 2008, petitioners have given details of the change of partnership firm from time to time. It is also stated that Smt.K.Atchamma relinquished her share by giving affidavit on 13.5.2002, therefore the partnership deed was reconstituted on 7.11.2002, wherein Konduru Sridhar Reddy and his daughter Konduru Nithya (second petitioner) were inducted as partners. Further, in view of death of Konduru Sridhar Reddy on 18.10.2003, his share devolved on his wife (first petitioner herein) as per his will dated 8.5.2003, hence again the partnership deed was reconstituted on 31.10.2003, wherein first petitioner and second petitioner were inducted as partners. While that being so, it appears, on a representation purported to have been made by Smt.K.Atchamma on 14.6.2006, the impugned G.O. came to be issued. Hence this writ petition. Second respondent as well as fifth respondents have filed detailed counter affidavits in W.P.No.27717 of 2007 denying the allegations made by the petitioners. In the counter filed by the second respondent, it is stated that the lease was granted by the Government in favour of (8) individuals and was never in favour of any partnership firm as alleged by the petitioners. As regards change or reconstitution of the partnership firm etc., it is an internal arrangement made by the lessees upon the death of the partners. There is no proceedings or approval by the State Government according such change or recognising the partnership firm. The State Government had granted lease in the name of (8) individuals and from time to time had recognized only the legal heirs or the transferees of leaseholders and not partnership firm as a lease holder. Further, there was no letter or representation made by Smt.K.Atchamma requesting the Department of Mines and Geology or the State Government to transfer the share as per alleged affidavit. Further, there are no proceedings issued by the first respondent approving or granting permission for such transfer. Further, there is no letter or declaration submitted by Smt.K.Atchamma stating that she has retired from the partnership firm or transferred all her leasehold rights. In fact, the letter dated 14.6.2006 submitted by Smt.K.Atchamma run contrary to most of the allegations made by the petitioners. Smt.K.Atchamma made a representation on 14.6.2006 to the second respondent stating that after the demise of M.Kodandarami Reddy, a partnership deed was entered on 15.10.1998 by incorporating the legal heirs of M.Kodandarami Reddy and at that time, she has given one anna share to her son K.Sridhar Reddy, out of three annas share, but this agreement was not implemented by the present management, which is looked after by S.Vijaybhaskar Reddy, one of the partners and that she had issued notice to all the parties in this behalf. Further, she has stated that she was not accorded her due share in the mining lease and therefore requested the second respondent to intervene in exercising her leasehold rights to the extent granted to her by the State Government and that the issue will be settled only in the case of mining operations are stopped till all the issues are resolved. Basing on the said representation, the second respondent vide Memo No.19622/R3-2/2006 dated 20.6.2006 directed the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nellore, fourth respondent herein to issue notice to all the lessees to immediately settle the dispute and see that Smt.K.Atchamma was given her legitimate right over the area by way of mutual discussions, otherwise it amounts to grabbing the rights granted to her by the Government and the same cannot be permitted. Basing on the said proceedings, the fourth respondent had issued notice dated 12.7.2006 to the lessees requesting them to settle the dispute of Smt.K.Atchamma by giving her legitimate right over the area by mutual discussions and call upon the lessees to intimate the same to his office within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which action will be initiated for determination of the lease. In response to the same, the firm M/s Rajeswari Mica Mines has submitted a reply dated 26.7.2006 stating that it is a dispute between Smt.K.Atchamma and her daughter-in-law Smt.K.Sarvani and grand daughter K.Nitya (petitioners herein) and that other partners have nothing to do with it and prayed that Smt.K.Atchamma may be advised to resolve the family dispute by way of private negotiations or other modes. It was further stated that basing on the family dispute of Smt.K.Atchamma, it is not justifiable to make any action for determination of the mining lease. Smt.K.Atchamma had made a representation on 14.6.2006 and basing on which a notice was issued by fourth respondent on 12.7.2006, to which a representation was made by the firm on 26.7.2006 as mentioned above. While things stood thus, Smt.K.Atchamma made an application on 12.1.2007 to the second respondent requesting to transfer her three annas share in favour of Smt.A.Indira, D/o Smt.K.Atchama. Basing on the said representation, second respondent in File Rc.No.19622/R3-2/2006 dated 14.2.2007 submitted proposals for transfer to the State Government stating that Smt.K.Atchamma is one of the (8) individuals who was holding two mining leases and the two leases proportionate of share three annas is subsistent in her favor as on date. The second respondent further stated that as on date, she is continuing as lessee and she is having absolute right over her three annas share in the leasehold rights. Further, Smt.K.Atchamma submitted an affidavit on 27.10.2006 in which she has given one anna share in favour of her grand daughter K.Nithya, D/o K.Sridhar Reddy and that as K.Nithya is out of country, she is unable to get her sworn affidavit which is essential for effecting transfer in her favour. Hence the transfer could not take place and now Smt.K.Atchamma decided to transfer even that one anna share of leasehold right in favor of her elder daughter Smt.A.Indira W/o A.Vidyasagar Reddy, apart from two annas share given by her to Smt.A.Indira vide letter dated 1.11.2006 and Smt.A.Indira expressed her willingness to accept the three annas share in her favour by way of transfer. Finally the second respondent recommended to accord permission for transferring three annas share to Smt.A.Indira by replacing the name of Smt.K.Atchamma in accordance with Rule 37 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Therefore, the Government after careful examination of the letter dated 1.11.2006, affidavit of Smt.K.Atchamma dated 27.10.2006, and the affidavit of Smt.A.Indira accorded permission for transfer of three annas share of Smt.K.Atchamma in favour of fifth respondent as per Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 vide G.O.Ms.No.331 dated 3.12.2007. The learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners in W.P.No.27717 of 2007 Sri N.Subba Reddy strenuously contended that the fact that Smt.K.Atchamma had relinquished her share by affidavit dated 13.5.2002 in favour of her son K.Sridhar Reddy and grand daughter K.Nithya and the partnership deed was reconstituted on 7.11.2002, wherein Konduru Sridhar Reddy (husband of first petitioner) and his daughter Konduru Nithya (second petitioner) were inducted as partners and the business was being run smoothly for four years is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute as to sharing of profits by the petitioners herein. After the death of Konduru Sridhar Reddy, his share was devolved on the first petitioner and thus, again there was reconstitution of the partnership firm and petitioners shared profits, which had also reflected in the income tax returns submitted by the firm M/s Rajeswari Mica Mines. While this being so, when Smt.K.Atchamma was residing with her daughter i.e. fifth respondent herein, the fifth respondent manipulated and managed to submit an application by Smt.K.Atchamma on 14.6.2006 and the impugned G.O. was issued on 3.12.2007 and on the very next day i.e. 4.12.2007, Smt.K.Atchamma passed away. All these things were done in suspicion and the needle of suspicion swings towards fifth respondent and her husband. The fifth respondent has no right whatsoever to inherit the property of her mother, particularly when a gift deed and affidavit were executed by Smt.K.Atchamma as early as on 13.5.2002 and the partnership deed was reconstituted on 7.11.2002 and after the death of K.Sridhar Reddy, the partnership deed was again reconstituted on 31.10.2003, wherein petitioners were inducted as partners. Further, the first petitioner made several representations dated 11.4.2007 and 16.4.2007 addressed to the first respondent with a copy marked to second respondent informing the status of her legal rights and as to how the resourceful son-in-law of Smt.K.Atchamma and her daughter are trying to grab the property, which had been already been gifted to her family. Further, the first petitioner also gave an affidavit on 17.7.2007 to the first respondent pointing out that the gifts given by the donor have been accepted by the donee and the same have been acted upon. But the first respondent, without considering all these things and without giving any notice, issued the impugned G.O.Ms.No.331 dated 3.12.2007 transferring three annas share held by Smt.K.Atchama in favour of fifth respondent in utter violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further contended that when civil consequences are involved and representations were made, it was the bounden duty of the official respondents to satisfy the principles of natural justice by issuing notices to the petitioners as well as to other (7) partners who were part of (8) individuals along with Smt.K.Atchamma. Therefore, the issuance of impugned G.O. is in utter violation of principles of natural justice, therefore the same is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for fifth respondent Sri B.Adinarayana Rao contended that in view of the counter filed by the Government, it is very clear that Smt.K.Atchamma sought for transfer of her leasehold rights in favour of fifth respondent by making a representation and the said representation was acted upon as per Rule 37 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Therefore, there is no necessity of issuing any notice either to the petitioners or to other partners of the firm or leaseholders for the purpose of transferring rights of Smt.K.Atchamma in favour of fifth respondent. He further contended that there is no such procedure prescribed under law requiring issuance of notice. It is between the transferor and the transferee and notices need not be given to either partners of the firm or the group of (8) individual leaseholders before issuing the impugned G.O. The writ petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. The learned Government Pleader appearing for official respondents reiterated the stand as taken in the counter and submitted that the authorities have acted as per law while taking into consideration Rule 37 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and therefore the impugned G.O. cannot be faulted with. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned G.O. and other material made available on record. At the outset, it may be noticed that leasehold rights were granted in favour of (8) individuals and not in favour of partnership firm. The partnership firm was constituted for the purpose of sharing profits and losses. All these (8) group of individuals have obtained leasehold rights in their favour. As and when a partner retired or died, their respective legal heirs were inducted as partners and the partnership deed was reconstituted from time to time. Smt.K.Atchamma appears to have transferred one anna’s share out of three anna’s share in the firm M/s Rajeswari Mica Mines in favour of her son K.Sridhar Reddy on 11.6.1990. Therefore, the partnership deed was reconstituted inducting K.Sridhar Reddy as a partner. Subsequently, Smt.K.Atchamma who was holding two anna’s share in the firm, gave an affidavit dated 13.5.2002 duly attested by Notary and Advocate expressing her willingness to retire from the said partnership firm voluntarily by giving her two annas share to her son Konduru Sridhar Reddy and her grand daughter Konduru Nitya, D/o Konduru Sridhar Reddy giving each one anna share, out of love and affection. In view of this, the partnership deed was again reconstituted on 7.11.2002, whereby Konduru Sridhar Reddy and his daughter Konduru Nithya (second petitioner) were inducted as partners. Thus, Smt.K.Atchamma was no where in the picture. Further, in view of death of Konduru Sridhar Reddy on 18.10.2003, his share devolved on his wife (first petitioner herein). Further, Smt.K.Atchamma by way of a comprehensive relinquishment deed relinquished her share in various properties including her 1/3rd share in the estate left behind by her only son late K.Sridhar Reddy in favour of first petitioner. The changes were intimated to the Income Tax Department from time to time in the returns filed by the firm M/s Rajeswari Mica Mines. All these averments were not specifically denied either in the counter filed by second respondent or in the counter filed by the fifth respondent. It is very curious to note that on the purported dispute raised by Smt.K.Atchamma, the fourth respondent had issued notice dated 12.7.2006 to the lessees requesting them to settle the dispute of Smt.K.Atchamma by giving her legitimate right over the area by mutual