THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.14395 OF 2005 DISPOSED OF ON: 23-12-2005. BETWEEN: D.R.ENTERPRISES .. PETITIONER AND GOVT. OF A.P. AND OTHERS. RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.14395 OF 2005 O R D E R : 1. The writ petitioner is a proprietary concern and it is represented by its Proprietor K.Dhananjay Reddy, s/o K.Radhakrishna Reddy. M/s.Pallava Granites Industries India Limited-4th respondent is a company registered under Companies Act and it is represented by its Managing Director K.Subba Reddy. K.Dhananjay Reddy and K.Subba Reddy are brothers. K.Subba Reddy is the pattadar of Ac.2-33 cents in S.No.60 (part) and Ac.2-63 cents in S.No.63/4 (part) of R.L.Puram village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. 2. The petitioner obtained lease of surface rights to an extent of Ac.4-96 cents comprising in S.Nos.60 (part) and 63/4 (part) from the pattadar. The Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole by his proceedings No.18457/R3(2)/1996, dated 3.12.1996 granted quarry lease for a period of 15 years from 21.12.1996 which would expire by 20-12-2011. The petitioner agreed to transfer the quarry lease in favour of 4th respondent and accordingly necessary affidavits as well as transfer application in the prescribed format i.e. Model Form – R were filed complying with the requirements under A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short Rules) on 6.11.2001. The petitioner filed affidavit/application on 6.10.2003 informing the respondents his intention to withdraw the transfer application filed on 6.11.2001. Thereafter the petitioner submitted another letter dated 7.11.2003 withdrawing the affidavit/application dated 6.10.2003. The Assistant Geologist inspected the site on 29.1.2004 and 2nd respondent submitted his report with regard to functioning of the quarry. 2nd respondent considered the transfer of quarry lease application, notarized affidavits of the petitioner and the 4th respondent dated 6.11.2001, and the report of 3rd respondent and issued proceedings dated 17.2.2004 permitting the petitioner to transfer the quarry lease in favour of 4th respondent. The relevant portion of the proceedings reads as under: “ The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole further reported that the area has been inspected by Assistant Geologist on 29.1.2004. As per the inspection report, the quarry is being working systematically with machinery like excavators, compressors, tippers, generator, wagon drill, jackhammers etc. leaving aside a stock 246.535 Cub. Mts of various sizes of blocks and made separate provision in adjacent patta land for stocking of generated waste from quarrying. Finally the Assistant director of Mines and Geology, Ongole has recommended for consideration of transfer of Quarry Lease held by M/s.D.R.Granites over an extent of 4.96 Acres in S.Nos.60(P) (2.33 acres) and 63/4 (2.63 acres) of R.L.Puram village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District in favour of M/s.Pallava Granite Industries India Limited for the unexpired period of the quarry lease i.e., upto 20-12-2011 under Rule 12(5)(h)(viii) of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999. M/s.D.R.Granites (Transferor) and M/s.Pallava Granite Industries India Limited (Transferee) have furnished Mineral Revenue Clearance Certificate and the same is valid upto 31.3.2004. In view of the above circumstances, M/s.D.R.Granites is hereby permitted to transfer the Quarry Lease held by them for Black Granite over an extent of 4.96 Acres in S.Nos.60(P) (2.33 Acres) and 63/4 (2.63 Acres) of R.L.Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District in favour of M/s.Pallava Granites Industries India Limited for the unexpired period of the quarry lease i.e. upto 20-12-2011 under Rule 12(5)(h)(viii) of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999.” The petitioner challenged the proceedings of the 2nd respondent by filing W.P.No.4262 2004. It was contended in the said writ petition that he never withdrew the application-dated 6.10.2003. This court, on considering the rival contentions, recorded a finding that the petitioner indeed filed a letter dated 7.11.2003 withdrawing his withdrawal application dated 6.10.2003. It is apposite to refer the relevant portion of the order passed in the said writ petition and it is thus: “ …In the light of such abundant material available on record, it is not open to the petitioner to deny submission of such a letter dated 7.11.2003. In fact, the conduct of the proprietor of the petitioner concern also does not inspire confidence to accept what he has stated in the affidavit is true. In fact, as per the original application, he has even received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from third respondent, which is said to have been incurred by him towards obtaining the lease rights and investment made for the development of the mine. It is not open to the petitioner to go back and contend that third respondent failed to comply with certain of the conditions, and therefore, sought to withdraw the transfer application. In any case, a there is a clear material available on record to show that the original transfer application filed along with the required affidavits by both the petitioner and third respondent, seeking to transfer the mining lease, were pending before respondents 1 and 2 for passing appropriate orders, though the petitioner claims that the said application was withdrawn by an affidavit/application dated 6.10.2003, but in view of the finding recorded earlier that the said application/affidavit dated 6.10.2003 was withdrawn by letter dated 7.11.2003. Thereafter, there was no hurdle before the official respondents to process and pass appropriate orders on the transfer application. First respondent, having satisfied as to the compliance of the rules and considering the report of second respondent passed the impugned order. mere non-reference to the letters dated 6.10.2003 and 7.11.2003 by first respondent is not material, as a reference to those letters is very much available in the proceedings of second respondent, basing on which the impugned orders were issued by first respondent. The impugned order of first respondent does not suffer from any illegalities or irregularities, and therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. No other ground is neither raised, nor argued. The interim order of status quo stands vacated. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances, no costs.” After disposal of the said writ petition, 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 13.7.2004 directing the petitioner to attend his office within 7 days from the date of receipt of the letter for execution of transfer lease deed. It was indicated in the letter that in case of the petitioner failing to appear for execution of transfer deed, the same would be executed in his absence in favour of the transferee. The petitioner challenged the proceedings of 3rd respondent dated 13.7.2004 by filing a revision before the 1st respondent. The revision filed by him ended in dismissal on 7.5.2005. The relevant portion of the order passed in the revision reads as follows: “ 15. It is further observed that when agreed to transfer the lease and by filing Form ‘R’ which is a statutory form for transfer of lease; and when all the requirements were fulfilled in this regard, the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad had issued transfer proceedings, which are strictly in accordance with Rule 12(5)(h)(viii) of APMMC Rules, 1966. These transfer proceedings were also upheld by the Honourable High Court of A.P. Hence, it is obligatory on the part of the transferor to transfer the quarry lease. 16. In view of the said order of the Hon’ble High Court upholding the quarry lease transfer order of the authorities, since the petitioner herein did not turn up for execution of the transfer of lease deed, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole vide his Letter No.6260/Q/1996, dt.13.7.2004 requested the petitioner herein based on the directions of the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad to attend his office within 7 days from the date of receipt of the letter for execution of the transfer lease deed, failing which the transfer lease deed will be executed in the absence of the petitioner with the transferee. Hence, in view of what is observed in the foregoing paras, Government do not find any merits on the arguments of M/s.D.R.Enterprises and also do not find any valid reasons to interfere with the letter issued by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole vide No.6260/Q/1996, dt.13.7.2004. Therefore, Government hereby dismiss the Revision Application filed by Sri.K.Dhananjay Reddy, Prop: M/s D.R.Enterprises, Government also hereby accord extension of time for 30 days for execution of transfer lease deed. 17. The Director of Mines and Geology is requested to take further necessary action in the matter, accordingly.” After dismissal of the revision, the 3rd respondent- Assistant Director of Mines and Geology issued proceedings dated 25.5.2005 informing the petitioner of the transfer of quarry lease in favour of 4th respondent on 25.5.2005. The relevant portion of the proceedings needs to be noted and it is thus: “ Since the Government has dismissed the revision application filed by M/s.D.R.Enterprises against the letter issued by this office vide reference 5th cited and hence the transfer of Quarry Lease deed has been executed on 25.5.2005 with the transferee. The lessee firm is hereby permitted to continue the quarrying operations for Black Granite in the above said quarry leased area for the un-expired portion of lease period i.e., upto 20-12-2001 duly observing the conditions of the quarry lease deed in Form G with conditions imposed by the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad in the proceedings 1st cited and also Appendix enclosed herewith the proceedings and also subject to the conditions that the quarry operations should not hamper the conditions of N.S.P. Canal if passing nearby.The lessee should submit quarterly returns in Form F and annual return in Form g to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, guntur and to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole as required under rule 41 of Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999. They should send report in form I to the Chief Inspector of Mines and Safety, Dhanbad and to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole as required under rule 30 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The lessee should produce all the accounts and registers pertaining to the quarry lease in the first week of April every year. The lessee firm should erect and maintain at their own expenses boundary pillars of substantial material standing not less than one meter over the surface of the ground at each corner (or) angle in the line of the area leased out. Further lessee should not carry on quarrying operations within a distance of 50 mts. From any public road or tank or canal. The lessee should obtain dispatch permits and get the way bills stamped by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole “Royalty paid” before transporting the mineral from the leased area. Further, the lessee should transport the raw blocks of Grnaite duly remitting the rates of Seigniorage fee fixed by the Government and the executive instructions issued from time to time on the subject.” Challenge has been made in the present writ petition with regard to the proceedings issued by the Director of Mines and Geology under letter dated 13.7.2004, order passed by the revisional authority vide Memo.No.9694/M21/2004-7, dated 21.7.2005 and the proceedings dated 29.5.2005 of the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Ongole. 3. The grounds urged by the writ petitioner in the writ affidavit are; firstly, the revisional authority has not considered various issues raised by the petitioner and simply carried away on certain findings recorded by this Court in W.P.No.4262 of 2004, secondly; the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology executed transfer lease deed in favour of 4th respondent even before communication of the orders passed by the revisional authority to the petitioner, thirdly; 3rd respondent is not competent to execute transfer lease deed in favour of 4th respondent- transferee without the consent of the petitioner and fourthly; the execution of the transfer lease deed in favour of 4th respondent is contrary to the earlier practice followed by them. 4. Respondents 3 and 4 filed counter affidavits. It is stated in the counter affidavit of third respondent that transfer lease deed has been executed in pursuance of the application submitted by the petitioner and 4th respondent in the prescribed format i.e. Model Form-R as provided under Rule 12(5)(h)(viii). It is suffice to refer para 6 of the counter affidavit and it is thus: “ 6. In reply to para Nos.7 to 10 of the affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that after hearing the arguments on both the parties the Government vide Memo.No.9694/M.II(1)/2004-7, dated 21.5.2005 has dismissed the revision application filed by M/s.D.R.Enterprises stating that the Government don’t find any valid reasons to interfere with the letter issued by the Asst.Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole vide Letter No.6260/Q/1996, dt.13.7.2004 based on the directions of the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad. While disposing the revision application of the petitioner the Government has observed that the petitioner has filed an application in Form-R which is a statutory form for transfer of lease and the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad has issued transfer proceedings which are strictly in accordance with Rule 12(5)(h)(viii) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession, Rules, 1966. The transfer proceedings were also upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad through its judgment dt.30.4.2004 in W.P.No.4262 of 2004. Hence, it is obligatory on the part of the transferor to transfer the quarry lease. The Government has also accorded extension of time for 30 days for execution of transfer of quarry lease deed. The Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad vide Memo.No.5817/R3(2)/2004, dt.24.5.2005 has furnished a copy of the above Government memo and requested to take necessary action. Accordingly this office has executed the transfer of quarry lease deed with the transferee on 25.5.2005 and work orders were issued vide Proc.No.6260/Q/1996, dt.25.5.2005 for the unexpired portion of lease period i.e., upto 20-12-2011. The contention of the petitioner that the government order dt.21.5.2005 is arbitrary, illegal are not correct, since the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has upheld the transfer proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad and said order of the court became final and binding on both the parties.” 5. It is stated in the counter affidavit of 4th respondent that an application for transfer of quarry lease in favour of 4th respondent has been submitted by the petitioner on 6.11.2001 as per the understanding reached between them and accordingly department transferred the quarry lease in favour of the company. Para 10 of the counter affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus: “ 10. In reply to para-9, it is submitted that respondent executed a lease deed in Form-G on 25.5.2005 and sanction proceedings were also issued by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology by proceedings dt.25.5.2005 quarry is in continuous operation by this respondent alone, after payment of seignior age fee to the Government and obtaining the permits. The writ petitioner has not come to this court with clean hands and has submitted in correct facts, this writ petitioner has never operated the quarry and he has chosen the remedy under Art.226 for settlement of his family disputes by blackmailing this respondent. The transfer order becomes final by judgment dt.30.4.2004 in W.P.No.4262 of 2004. The order of Director of Mines and Geology and Assistant Director of Mines and Geology is only a consequential proceedings. Having received Rs.5,50,000/- paid by this respondent for transfer submitted transfer application now he cannot come forward that he is not intending to execute the lease deed. The quarry lease is transfer is sub soil rights for which writ petitioner has no right not even the surface rights. The sub soil rights can be granted and transferred only by the Government. The orders of transfer is passed strictly in terms of rules and lease deed also is executed as per rules. Writ petition is questioning the consequential proceedings when the original proceedings are upheld is not maintainable in correct facts are stated for the purpose of interim order, wherein an interim order is passed suspending the proceedings under the impression that the lease still stands in favour of writ petition which is absolutely incorrect. The very proceeding under challenge is dt.25.5.2005 which is the work order in favour of this respondent.” 6. Heard Sri.D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for Mines and Geology for respondents 1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for 4thr respondent company. 7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is not inclined to transfer the quarry lease in favour of 4th respondent, 3rd respondent is not competent to transfer quary lease and more so against the wishes of the petitioner. He further submits that 4th respondent has to work out his remedy elsewhere since the petitioner has specifically indicated of his intention not to transfer quarry lease in his favour. He also refers to various provisions of the Rules. Further submission has been made that there is no prescribed form for transfer of quarry lease under Rules and therefore it is for the 4th respondent to get a general conveyance deed taking recourse to the common law remedy. 8. Learned counsel appearing for 4th respondent submits that since consent letter dated 6.11.2001 for transfer of quarry lease in favour of 4th respondent has been upheld in the earlier proceedings, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise any objection with regard to transfer of quarry lease and in the circumstances, 3rd respondent is justified in transferring quarry lease in favour of 4th respondent. 9. The scope and extent of power of the judicial review of the High Court contained in Article 226 of the Constitution of India would vary from case to case, the nature of the order, the relevant statute as also the other relevant factors including the nature of power exercised by the public authorities, namely, whether the power is statutory, quasi judicial or administrative. The power of judicial review is not intended to assume a supervisory role or done the robes of omnipresent. The power is not intended either to review governance under the rule of law nor do the courts step into the areas exclusively reserved by the supreme lex to the other organs of the State. Decisions and actions which do not have adjudicative disposition may not strictly fall for consideration before a judicial review court. The limited scope of judicial review succinctly put are: (I) Courts, while exercising the power of judicial review, do not sit in appeal over the decisions of administrative bodies; (II) A petition for a judicial review would lie only on certain well-defined grounds. (III) An order passed by an administrative authority exercising discretion vested in it, cannot be interfered in judicial review unless it is shown that exercise of discretion itself is perverse or illegal. (IV) A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the power of judicial review; the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on a court is limited to seeing that tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and that its decisions do not occasion miscarriage of justice. (V) The courts cannot be called upon to undertake the government duties and functions. The court shall not ordinarily interfere with a policy decision of the State. Social and economic belief of a judge should not be invoked as a substitute for the judgment of the legislative bodies. 10. A fact is required to be noted that the proprietor of the petitioner concern and the Managing Director of 4th respondent –Company are no other than own brothers. Undisputedly the Managing Director of 4th respondent-company is pattadar of the land admeasuring Ac.4-96 cents comprising in s.Nos.60 9part) and 63/4 (part). The petitioner took the surface rights of lease from the pattadar. Thereafter he approached the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology for grant of quarry lease for black granite. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology granted quarry lease in favour of the petitioner and executed a lease deed on 21.12.1991. The period of lease came to be extended for a further period of 15 years. Renewal lease is from 21.12.1996 to 20-12-2011. The petitioner submitted transfer application on 6.11.2001 in the prescribed form i.e. Form-R. He withdrew the transfer application on 6.10.2003. Subsequently he submitted a letter dated 7.10.2003 withdrawing his affidavit/application dated 6.10.2003. However, this is the subject matter of the earlier writ petition. The petitioner questioned the proceedings of the Director of Miens and Geology whereby and whereunder permission has been accorded to transfer quarry lease in favour of 4th respondent-company. The said writ petition being W.P.No.4262 of 2004 ended in dismissal. Therefore, it can be said without any controversy that Form R submitted by the petitioner seeking transfer of quarry lease in favour of 4th respondent-company holds good. Further proceedings have been taken by the department of Mines and Geology to transfer the lease in favour of 4th respondent-company basing on the said Form-R. 11. Much argument has been advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that mere filing of Form R is not sufficient and that regular conveyance deed is required to be executed by the petitioner and since the petitioner is not inclined, the Department cannot execute transfer lease deed on behalf of the petitioner in the name of 4th respondent-company. 12. At this juncture, Rule 12(5)(h)(viii) is required to be noted and it is thus: “ (viii) The licensee or lessee shall not assign, sub-let, transfer or otherwise dispose of the under licence or lease without obtaining the previous sanction in writing of the Director. The transfer application shall be made to the Assistant Director of the District concerned in Form R along with non-refundable application fee of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). The licence or lease deed shall be executed as per the provision under clause (e): Provided that such sanction shall be accorded that there is no speculation involved in the transfer of licence or lease: Provided further that the transferor and the transferee shall not be in arrears of any mineral revenue to the Government.” Once an application has been submitted by the transferor and the department accepts the same, it is for the Department to transfer the quarry lease since the sub- soil rights of the land vests with the Department. In view of the chequered career of the case, and since the proceedings issued by the Director of Mines and Geology according permission to transfer quarry lease in favour of 4th respondent-company being upheld in the earlier round of litigation, I do not see any flaw in issuing the proceedings impugned in the writ petition by the Department. 13. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. Dated: 23-12-2005. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.14395 OF 2005 DISPOSED OF ON : 23-12-2005.