IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19363 of 2001 Between: 1. P. Rama Rao, S/o. Muthyam Rao, R/o. 1-2-24, Flat No.104, Venkatakrupa Apartment, Domalguda, Hyderabad (Died per LR) 2. P. Lakshmi, W/o late P. Rama Rao, aged 28 years. (Petitioner No.2 brought on record as LR of deceased petitioner as per Court order dated 26.07.2005 in WPMP No.20505 of 2005) ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Adilabad. .....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 to issue an order or writ one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing G.O.Ms. No. 32 Industries & Commerce (M.III) Department, dt. 19-2-1997 perscribing guidelines for grant of mineral concessions for limestone and declare the G.O.Ms.No. 32, Industries & Commerce (M.III) Department,l dt. 19-2-1997 as arbitrary, illegal, violative of the Constitution and in applicable, and without any legislative competency and null and void and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.N.SHOBA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 19363 of 2001 Order: In this writ petition the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 32 dated 19.02.1997, whereby guidelines were prescribed for grant of mineral concessions for limestone, is under challenge. The petitioner would seek a declaration that the said G.O is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void. Facts, to the limited extent necessary for disposal of the writ petition, are that the petitioner had applied for a mining licence for an extent of Ac.523.00. However, placing reliance on the guidelines issued in G.O. Ms. No.32 dated 19.02.1997, his application was restricted only to Ac.20.00. G.O. Ms. No.32 dated 19.02.1997 are the guidelines issued by the State Government and under Clause 4(2) thereof, in respect of mining lease applications for patta lands, grants of licence was to be restricted to an area not exceeding Ac.30.00. Smt. N. Shoba, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that this restriction of Ac.30.00 was ultra vires Section 6 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’). Section 6 of the Act prescribes the maximum area for which a prospecting licence, or a mining lease, may be granted and, under Sub- Section 1(a) thereof, no person shall acquire, in respect of any mineral or prescribed group of associated minerals in a State, one or more prospecting licences covering a total area of more than twenty-five square kilometers. The maximum extent for which a mining licence can be granted under Section 6(1)(a) is 25 square kilometers. The proviso thereunder stipulates that, if the Central Government is of the opinion that in the interests of the development of any mineral, it is necessary so to do, it may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, permit any person to acquire one or more prospecting licences or mining leases covering an area in excess of the aforesaid total area. It is evident from the proviso to Section 6(1) that the Central Government can grant prospecting licences even in case the total area exceeds 25 square kilometers, provided, of course, it is of the opinion that it is in the interests of the development of any mineral. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 13(1) of the Act, the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 were made and, under Rule 27(3) thereof, the State Government may, either with the previous approval of the Central Government or at the instance of the Central government, impose such further conditions as may be necessary in the interests of mineral development. Even under this rule, the conditions which the State Government is empowered to impose is only with the previous approval of the Central Government or in cases where the Central Government directs its imposition in the interests of mineral development. Neither Section 6 of the Act nor Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, empowers the State Government, on its own accord, to restrict the total area, for which a prospecting licence can be granted, to an extent less than what has been prescribed in Section 6(1) of the Act. Learned Government Pleader for Industries would, however, submit that the power to issue guidelines under G.O. Ms. No. 32 dated 19.02.1997 is traceable to the proviso to Section 6(1)(c) of the Act. Under Section 6(1)(c) of the Act, no person shall acquire, in respect of any mineral or prescribed group of associated minerals in a State, any reconnaissance permit, mining lease or prospecting licence in respect of any area which is not compact or contiguous. Under the proviso thereunder, if the State Government is of the opinion that in the interests of the development of any mineral, it is necessary so to do, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, permit any person to acquire a reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease in relation to any area which is not compact or contiguous. Section 6(1)(c) and its proviso relate to a compact piece of land or land which is contiguous. These statutory provisions have no bearing on the total area of land for which a prospecting licence can be granted. Placing such a power, as enuring in favour of the State Government under Section 6(1)(c) of the Act, would render Section 6(1)(a) and its proviso redundant. It is well settled that no provision of a statute can be so read as to render it mere surplussage or a dead letter. The source of power to issue G.O. Ms. No. 32 dated 19.02.1997 is not referable to Section 6(1)(c) or to the proviso thereunder. It is evident, therefore, that the State Government is bereft of the power to issue guidelines such as the one in Clauses (1) and (2) of para 4 of G.O. Ms. No. 32 dated 19.02.1997. Clauses (1) and (2) of para 4 of G.O. Ms. No. 32 dated 19.02.1997 are ultra vires Section 6(1)(a) of the Act and are, accordingly, quashed. The writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 13.03.2009 Nsr