IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 1201 of 2001 Between: Sri.T.V.Raghavaiah, S/o.Narasimha Rao, R/o Dwaraka Trumala, W.G.Dist, rep. by its G.P.A. Holder, O.K.Visweswara Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce (M.II) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Director of Mines & Geology, BRKR Bhavan, 8th floor, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 Dy.Director of Mines & Geology, Pratap Nagar, kakinada. 4 Asst. Director of Mines & Geology, Ashok Nagar, Eluru, W.G.Dist. .....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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari (a) The records relating to and connected with the Memo.No.1050/M.III- 1/94-5, dt.10.8.2000 of the 1st respondent and quash or set aside the same to the extent the mining lease in favour of the WP was renewed to the reduced extent of Ac.64.17 as a single bit, holding it illegal, arbitrary and unjust, (b) Consequently direct the respondents to renew the mining lease in favour of the writ petitioner over the entire extent of Ac.74.26, in 2 bits and further direct the respondents to ensure that the entire extent of the mining area is surveyed measured, boundaries fixed and put the petitioner in possession of the entire of the land (c) The records relating to and connected with show cause notices No.1371/M2/2000, dt.6.11.2000 and 1371/M2/2000, dt.16.11.2000 issued by the Dy.Director of Mines & Geology, Kakinada and quash the same holding it illegal. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following : ORDER: The primary grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is against the order of the Government in Memo No.1050/M.III-1/94-5, dated 10-08-2000. 2. The facts in brief are as follows: The petitioner was granted mining lease in respect of Ac.74.26 cents for the mineral, fire clay in Sy.No.145 of Asannagudem village, Lingapalem mandal, West Godavri District. The said lease was granted in 1974 by the Government of A.P. under G.O.Ms.No.195, Industries and Commerce Department, dated 19-02-1974, and a lease deed, dated 22-04-1974, together with a sketch appended to the lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by the District Collector who was the then competent authority. Petitioner submits that he had made an application for renewal before the expiry of the term and the said application was ultimately before the Government in the proceedings stated above. 3. It is further alleged that in the meanwhile during the term of the first lease, there was a re-survey of the entire Sy.No.145 which had a total extent of more than Ac.200.00. During the said resurvey, Sy.No.145 is sub-divided into Sy.No.176 and its sub- numbers. Petitioner alleges that during the hearing of the proceedings before the Government though the claim of the third party-objector was rejected, and the allegations made by the said objector against the petitioner were found incorrect, while granting the renewal the Government has wrongfully confined the said renewal to only Ac.64.17 cents as against the claim of the petitioner for the entire extent of Ac.74.26 cents. Against the said order of the Government, dated 10-08-2000, to the extent of not granting renewal for the balance extent, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Petitioner has also challenged the consequential show cause notice issued by the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology bearing No.1371/M2/2000, dated 06-11-2000, as well as 1371/M2/2000, dated 16-11-2000, and both the said show cause notices allege that the petitioner has resorted to illegal mining and has caused loss with respect to mineral to the Government. Petitioner alleges that the Government itself, under the impugned order, having found that the said balance area is lying unexploited and vacant, the show cause notice given by the Deputy Director as above, is totally contrary to the findings of the Government and as such, challenges the same along with the impugned order of the Government, dated 10-08-2000, referred to above. 5. I have heard Sri S.Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce. 6. It is not in dispute that the original area of grant in favour of the petitioner was Ac.74.26 cents and a regular lease deed duly appended with a sketch was executed in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.195 Industries & Commerce Department, dated 19- 02-1974. Under the aforesaid lease deed, the petitioner was entitled to mine the entire Ac.74.26 cents and he was also granted a right of renewal thereof for a further term. The question, therefore, for consideration is, as to whether the Government is justified in reducing the area of grant at the time of considering the renewal application?. The right granted in favour of the petitioner under the lease deed, dated 22-02-1974, is obviously a right in property which is lawfully conveyed in accordance with the Government order and the said rights could not have been unilaterally curtailed or affected by the Government. The only reason given in the impugned order is based upon the comments of the Joint Director of Mines & Geology that the lease spread over to separate bits could not have been granted initially and based upon the said comment, the renewal appears to have been confined by the Government to only one bit of Ac.64.17 cents. Neither the impugned order nor the counter- affidavit points out any rule which prohibits grant of lease in two bits as mentioned by the Joint Director before the Government. 7. Learned Government Pleader also is unable to point out any rule which prohibits such grant. Even otherwise, the said grant was made in 1974, and has worked for its full term of twenty years without any objection of any nature from the mining department or the Government. The denial of renewal only on the said non-existent ground is therefore clearly impermissible and arbitrary. It is no doubt true that the original survey No.145 has undergone bifurcations or trifurcations and has been assigned new survey numbers and in the process it may be that the separate bits of the said survey number appear on ground as per the said resurvey. However, merely because of subsequent resurvey, the rights of the petitioner as granted under the original lease deed cannot be affected. 8. In the light of the above, I am of the view that the very basis of the impugned order passed by the Government to the extent of rejecting the petitioner’s claim for renewal of the balance area is clearly arbitrary and not sustainable in law, and in view of the same, the impugned order to the extent of disallowing the renewal in favour of the petitioner of the balance extent out of the total extent of Ac.74.26 cents is required to be reconsidered by the Government in accordance with law. The impugned order of the Government, dated 10-08-2000, is therefore set aside to the extent indicated above and the 1st respondent-Government is directed to reconsider the issue as to the grant of renewal in favour of the petitioner with respect to balance area (Ac.74.26 cents–Ac.64.17 cents already granted to the petitioner) after issuing notices to all the parties concerned and after giving opportunity to the petitioner. The said exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. So far as the show cause notices, dated 06-11-2000 and 16-11-2000, referred to above are concerned, prima facie they appear to be contrary to the findings of the Government in the order, dated 10-08-2000, referred to above. In fact, the said Government’s order is not even referred to by the Deputy Director while issuing show cause notice. While admitting the Writ Petition on 30-01-2001 this Court had granted stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the said show cause notice and the said interim order operates even now. In view of the direction as above, to the Government to reconsider their proceedings, dated 10-08-2000, the show cause notices dated 06-11-2000 and 16- 11-2000 as above, shall await the decision of the Government with respect to renewal as directed above and the Deputy Director shall proceed further in the matter, if necessary, depending upon the outcome of the proceedings before the Government. 10. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed with directions as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J 11th December, 2008. Tsy To 1 The Secretary, State of A.P., Industries & Commerce (M.II) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Mines & Geology, BRKR Bhavan, 8th floor, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Pratap Nagar, kakinada. 4 The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Ashok Nagar, Eluru, W.G.Dist. 5 CCs to the GP for Industries & Commerce. 6 2CD copies