The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.28783 of 2008 Date: 14.07.2011 Between: Raka Impex Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr.P.Satish Kumar ..... Petitioner AND 1.State Bank of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Industries and Commerce (M1) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 7 others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.Ramachandra Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP for Industries & Commerce Counsel for respondent No.3: None appeared Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 8: Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside letter No.39885/R3-3/07, dated 22-10-2008, of respondent No.2. I have heard Sri G.Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 8. The petitioner was granted a mining lease for Quartz over an extent of Ac.83-63 cents in Survey Nos.697/2, 698/2, 699/1, 701/1, 518/p, 519, 527 and 528 of Chaganam Village, Sydapuram Mandal, Nellore District, for a period of twenty years vide G.O.Ms.No.561 Industries and Commerce Department, dated 30-10-2000. The private respondents herein represented respondent No.1 that out of the land, over which the mining lease was granted to the petitioner, an extent of Ac.49.20 cents, in Survey Nos.697/2, 698/2, 699/1 and 701/1 of Chaganam Village, Sydapuram Mandal, belongs to them and that though this land was, earlier, sold to the petitioner, subsequently, they have repurchased the same vide document No.276/2006, dated 06-07-2006. These respondents have requested respondent No.2 not to allow the petitioner to carry on mining activity over the said patta lands. On considering the said representation, respondent No.2 has addressed the impugned letter to the petitioner wherein it is inter alia stated that Rule 22 (3) (h) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short ‘the Rules’), prescribes that the leaseholder shall obtain written consent of the pattadar before entering the mining area; that the pattadars are entitled to access into their land, which is in existence prior to the grant of lease, and that under Regulation 111 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 (for short ‘the Regulations’), the petitioner is expected to leave 7.50 meters to the adjoining lease boundary so as to prevent collapse of the surface land belonging to the neighbours and any damage to their land. Respondent No.2 has, therefore, called upon the petitioner to follow the above-mentioned Rules while conducting mining operations, failing which the lease granted in his favour will be liable for termination, if any complaint is received in this regard. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that once lease has been granted in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.2 will have no power or authority to interfere with its mining activities and therefore, the impugned communication is beyond the powers of respondent No.2. No counter-affidavit is filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 even though the private respondents i.e., respondent Nos.3 to 8 filed a counter-affidavit. A careful perusal of the impugned communication would show that respondent No.2 has merely reminded the petitioner of the position obtaining under the Rules and the Regulations. He has merely cautioned the petitioner that if it violates this set of Rules and Regulations with reference to the objections raised by the private respondents, in future, there is a possibility of termination of its lease. As of now, no order, prejudicial to the petitioner’s interest, has been passed by respondent No.2. In my opinion, at this stage, it is not necessary to adjudicate on the issue whether respondent No.2 has jurisdiction to interfere with the petitioner’s mining activity because no such interference has been caused till now. While the petitioner cannot deny its obligation to follow the statutory Rules and the Regulations framed under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the question whether these Rules have been followed or not will arise for consideration in the event of an adverse order being passed. As no such order has been passed till now, no cause of action is accrued to the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. If the petitioner feels that it has complied with the statutory Rules and the Regulations and is also of the opinion that respondent No.2 has no authority to interfere with its right to carry on mining activity, it shall be free to make a representation to respondent No.2, raising all legally sustainable objections to the impugned communication. Thereupon, respondent No.2 shall consider the same, pass appropriate order and communicate the decision to the petitioner. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision taken by respondent No.2, it shall be free to avail appropriate remedy available to it in accordance with law. The petitioner shall make such representation within a period of one month from today and till a decision, in this regard, is taken by respondent No.2, the latter or his subordinates shall not interfere with the petitioner’s mining activities over the land in question. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WVMP.No.1236 of 2009 in/& WPMP.Nos.37667 and 37666 of 2008 are disposed of. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 14th July, 2011 LUR