THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO. 19194 OF 2007 BETWEEN: M/S Lalitha Cements Limited represented by its Managing Director ------ PETITIONER AND Government of Andhra Pradesh Industries and Commerce (MICZ) Department represented by its Secretary, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and three others. ----- RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO. 19194 OF 2007 ORAL ORDER: 1. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 11.9.2007. Counter affidavit of R3 is filed. 2. Heard Ms. G. Sabitha, learned counsel representing the petitioner, the learned A.G.P. for Industries, and Smt. T. Bala Jayasri, the counsel representing the respondents. 3. Ms. G. Sabitha, counsel for the petitioner had taken this court through the contents of the affidavit and also the counter affidavit and in the light of the memos the rejections of the application on the ground that neither the applicant nor the representative were present at the relevant point of time cannot be sustained. The counsel had taken this court through the contents of the affidavit and also the counter affidavit and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner to be given due opportunity in this regard. 4. On the contrary, the learned A.G.P. for Industries would submit that in the light of several applications, which have filed and also in the light of the laches and delay on the part of the petitioner and further taking the conduct of the petitioner into consideration, the relief cannot be granted. 5. Heard the counsel and perused the records. 6. The Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a writ or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to set aside the rejection orders issued by him vide memo No. 12567/MI(2)/2005-2 dated 4.1.2006 and consequently declaring the dismissal order issued by the fourth respondent vide File No. 2(10)/2006- RC-II, dated 4.7.2007 to avoid irreparable loss mentally, physically, financially in the interest of Mineral Development and also in the interest of general public and the petitioners are going to establish Cement and Cogeneration Power Plant at RaghunathaPalem, which generates employment to the local people and also for the development of the backward areas of the Nalgonda District. 7. The Managing Director of the petitioner’s Compnay M/s Lalitha Cements Limited had sworn to the affidavit. It is averred that the petitioner field an application on 8.4.2004 for grant of Mining Lease for Lime Stone to an extent of 338.32 Acres in S.No. 318 of Raghunathapalem Village, Matempally Mandal, Nalgonda District, with the Government of Andhra Pradesh through third respondent. 8. It is further averred that the third respondent had acknowledged the application for prospecting Lincence along with all enclosures vide letter bearing No. 982/Mz/2004, dated 15.4.2004. It is pertinent to mention that on 15.4.2004, the third respondent herein had also forwarded copy of the application of the petitioner, seeking reports regarding clarifications and availability of land applied. He further submits that the third respondent had sent a letter dated 30.4.2004 and requested him to proceed to spot inspection and survey of the applied land and the petitioner failed to report to the third respondent as per the said letter. 9. It is further averred that vide Memo No. 12567/MI(2)/2005-2, dated 4.1.2006 the Government have rejected his application of Mining Lease on the ground that he was filed to attend the Survey and Inspection. The petitioner received a copy of such rejection order on 20.1.2006. In response to the above, on 28.1.2006 the petitioner filed a representation addressing to the Assistant Secretary to Government, Government of A.P., Industries and Commerce department and tried to bring their notice that the communication of rejection was misplaced and could not lay on hand. He also stated in the said representation that the petitioner is very much interested to have the Mining Lease for setting up of Cement Plant of Million TPA capacity and 15 mw Cogeneration Power Plant and requested to extend time for three months to attend the survey with Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Miryalaguda, but there is no response from the Government. 10. It is also stated that the rejection of the application for prospecting License was only on the sole ground that they failed to report to the third respondent on 4.6.2004 to proceed with him to spot inspection, therefore the said rejections is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide its Memo bearing No. 2/M.I(2)/95-1 dated 15.2.1995 and Memo bearing No. 4126/M.111-2/2000-3, dated 24.8.2000. In the said memos Government clearly held that the application for prospecting Licence for mining lease cannot be rejected for the reason that the application is absent for inspection and survey of subject land. He further submits that as aggrieved by the above said order the petitioner filed a revision under R.54 of MC Rules, 1960, before the Government of India, challenging the Memo. 12576/MI(2)/2005-2 dated 4.1.2006, rejection order issued by the first respondent herein. 11. It is also further stated that vide Memo No. 2/MI(2)/95-1, dated 15.2.1995, the Government have directed the Director of Mines and Geology as per the Mineral Law, personal absence of applicant for inspection of site by the Department is not a ground for rejection. If full particulars of the location and the site are available in the application, he should be able to conduct the inspection by himself without insisting for the personal presence of the applicant and in case there is any information lacking, the Department should either call for it from the applicant or return the application for submission in full shape rather than forwarding it to the Government. 12. It is further averred that the petitioner relied on mainly on the above two memos and also on some other grounds. He further submits that Central Government after several postponements of the hearing date, called the petitioner for hearing on 4.7.2007. The petitioner’s counsel attended the hearing at Delhi on the same date. He further submits that his revision application was dismissed by the Central Government vide File No. 2(10)/2006-RC-II, dated 4.7.2007 on the ground of delay in filing the Revision. The petitioner submitted Medical Certificate from 19.8.2004 to 31.5.2006 in proof of his prolonged ill-health and he was advised for total bed rest, thus he could not be able to file revision before the Government of India within time. But the Central Government did not consider his prolonged ill health and dismissed his revision application. 13. It is also averred that the petitioner is setting up a Cement and Cogeneration Power Plant, for which it is very much necessary to get the Mining Lease granted, otherwise, their cement plant will become sick unit and in turn it will effect several unemployed persons, who will get employment and livelihood through such Mining Lease and Cement Plant. 14. It is also averred that the application of the petitioner for Mining Lease in S.No. 318 for Lime Stone is rejected , in the same survey number i.e., S. No. 318 of Raghunathapalem Village, he applied for alienation of Government Land and also succeeded. The District Collector, Nalgonda vide Proc. No. E2/1305/06, dated 12.6.2007 sanctioned the Government land to an extent of Acs. 9.32 Gts and requested them to remit market value of Rs. 7,84,000/- and was already remitted by the petitioner. 15. In paragraph ten of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated that the Central Government, Industries and Commerce Department is kind enough and also pleased to give permission to establish such Cement Plan. Accordingly, the petitioner started civil works for establishment of Cement Plant incurring huge money. SL. No. DOCUMENT No. DATE VILLAGE AND SL.NO. CONSIDERA- TION 1. 1971/2006 17.8.2006 Gundlapally village, Mattampally Mandal 5,90,000/- 2. 1898/2007 24.5.2007 Raghunathapalem in S.No. 318 5,90,000/- 3. 1925/2006 17.8.2006 Raghunathapalem In S.No. 300/D/5 2,34,000/- 4. 1924/2006 17.8.2006 Raghunathapalem In S.No. 300/D/1/2 2,34,000/- 5. 2146/2006 11.9.2006 Raghunathapalem In S.No. 300/D 38,72,000/- 6. 2145/2006 119.2006 Raghunathapalem In S.No.300/D/1/3 43,56,000/- 7. 2144/2006 11.9.2006 Raghunathapalem In S.No.300/D/1/4 3,12,000/- 8. 2168/2006 12.9.2006 Raghunathapalem In S.No.300/D/8 3,90,000/- 16. Further it is stated that the petitioner company bought several adjacent lands by investing lakhs of rupees vide the following documents: 17. It is further stated that the petitioner being a public limited company have taken all the steps necessary to establish Cement Plant and succeeded in getting permission from all the authorities concerned. The petitioner-Company also succeeded in getting the permission from the Ministry of Environment and Forests to establish the Cement and Cogeneration Power Plant at Raghunathapalem. 18. It is also stated that the petitioner succeeded before all the authorities concerned and also started civil construction works by investing huge money. The Mining Lease, which is the essential element for the purpose of establishing the cement plant was rejected. Further the petitioner also failed to succeed before the Government of India merely on the ground of delay but not on the ground of merits. 19. Recently the State Government have granted Mining Lease for Lime Stone vide G.O.Ms.No. 209 Industries and Commerce (MI) Department dated 2.8.2007 in S.No. 247 and 258 of Raghunathapalem Village, Mattampalli Mandal, Nalgonda District over an extent of 132.34 acres with a mineral reserves of Rs. 2,58,67,784 MT to their Cement Plant. The life of the Mines is only 16 years. As per the NCCB norms, the reserves are required minimum 70 years. Hence, the area applied by the petitioner in S.No. 318 of Raghunathapalem Village , Mattampally Mandal, Nalgonda District is very much essential to run Cement Plant. 20. It is also further stated that at this stage, the petitioner cannot go back and recover huge expenditure incurred in the interest of public and also in the interest of Mineral Development. If the petitioner failed to obtain the Mining Lease they will be put to irreparable loss and it will also affect several public, as the petitioner being a Public Limited Company. Also the Government decision would jeopardized the employment to the skilled and unskilled local people directly and indirectly and much more people in other areas. It also restricts and retards the development of backward area of A.P. State. In fact the Government should help for the people who would make employment opportunities and local area development and economic growth of nation. 21. Counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent. As per the records, it is stated that M/s Lalitha Cements Limited, has filed a Mining Lease application for grant of Mining Lease for Limestone over an extent of Ac.338.32 gts in S.No. 318 of Raghunadhapalem Village, Mattampally Mandal, Nalgonda District, for a period of 20 years. The application was received in the office of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Miryalaguda on 15.4.2004. 22. It is further stated that on the same day of receipt of the application acknowledgement was issued to the applicant vide letter bearing No. 982/M2/2004, dated 15.4.2004. This Office has also addressed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mattampally regarding clarification and availability of the land and no objection Certificate for processing the Mining Lease application. It is further submitted that this office had requested the applicant or his authorized representative to attend for the survey and inspection of the applied area on 4.6.2004, 25.9.2004 and 8.11.2004 through letter No. 982/M2/2004 by registered post acknowledgement due. Neither the applicant nor his authorized representative attended for the survey and inspection despite receipts of the intimation well in advance even after second and third opportunity. 23. It is also further averred that the applicant has not shown any interest to attend for survey and inspection and neither followed up the application after filing the same, this fact is clear form the applicants silence in not responding to the three opportunities given, hence, the application was recommended for rejection and the Government vide memo No. 125678/M1 (2)/2005-2 dated 4.1.2006 had rejected the application after duly issuing a show cause notice to the applicant well in advance. The representation dated 20.1.2006 was filed by the petitioner subsequent to the rejection order passed by the Government on the Mining Lease application of the applicant, hence, it was not considered. The applicant miserably failed to show his applied area on the field even after giving opportunities for three times by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Mirayalaguda. Again before rejecting his application, the Government had given an opportunity wherein, he could not submit the representation for survey and Inspection to the Government in time, and the said representation was submitted to the Government after the rejection order was issued. 24. It is also stated that a set off application was sent to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mattampally on 15.4.2004 for giving the classification, availability and ‘no objection’ certificate for the applied land. However, no objection certificate from the Revenue Department was not received. The applied area could not be taken up for survey and inspection, as the applicant has not furnished the FBM sketch. Further the applied area is a Government Land, which is surrounded by Patta lands. For physical survey and demarcation of the area on the field, the applicant or his representative’s presence along with adjacent pattadars is necessary to avoid the future legal problems/difficulties. Further to take up the inspection of the area independently without physical survey of the area, the applicant or his authorized representative’s presence is required, as it involves the identification of the mineral deposition and its Geological Succession, nature of Country rock, nature of deposit and estimation of the deposit, and for demarcation of the area, physical survey, the assistance of the applicant, Revenue Department surveyor and the adjacent land owner are also required. 25. The purport of the Government executive instructions is for survey and inspection for ascertaining physical behavior of the mineral deposit for which the applicant presence is not required. It is submitted that with regard to the instant application, neither the applicant has come forward to show boundaries of his applied area nor the Revenue Department forwarded their No-objection certificate. The Department had submitted the rejection proposals to the Government and the Government after giving a show cause notice had rejected the application, keeping in view the instructions and the failure of applicant. 26. Further in reply to paragraph 8 it is submitted that the applicant has not submitted any Project Report for setting up of the Cement Plant Cogeneration Power Plant and neither produced any evidence in their behalf while making the application. 27. The averments in paragraphs 13 and 14 also had been substantially denied and further it is stated that the applicant was recently granted a Mining Lease for Lime Stone over an extent of Ac. 132.34 in S.Nos. 247 and 258 of Raghunathapalem, Mattampally Mandal, Nalgonda District and the applicant can feed the Mineral from the above Mining Lease area to their Cement Plant. 28. Further in reply to paragraph 15, it is submitted that recently, the Government has granted the Mining Lease for Lime Stone vide G.O.Ms.No. 209 Industries and Commerce (MI) Department, dated 2.8.2007 in S.No. 247 and 258 of Raghunadhapalem Village, Mattampally Mandal, Nalgonda District over an extent of Ac. 132.34 for a period of 20 years in favour of M/s Lalitha Cements Limited. The petitioner can run their cement plant by feeding the Lime Stone from the above granted area. Further, it is submitted that as per verification of records, there are the following two Mining Lease applications received in the same land of survey number 318 of Raghunathapalem Village, Matampally Mandal, Nalgonda District. S. NO. Name of the applicant Date of Receipt of Application Extent applied. 1. M/s Sagar Cements Limited 4-4-2006 334.09 Acs. 2. M/s Sagar Cements Limited 28.4.2006 222.06 Acs. The above Mining Lease applications have to be disposed of while giving priority as per Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Hence, it is submitted that there are no merits to consider the request made by the petitioner at this belated stage. As the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches in proceeding with the application made for grant of lease. 29. In the above circumstances, it is prayed that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 30. In the light of the respective stands taken by the parties, it is no doubt true that there have been some laches on the part of the petitioner. It is also true that in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit it is specified that as per the verification of the records, there are the following two Mining Lease applications received in the same land of survey number 318 of Raghunathapalem Village, Matampally Mandal, Nalgonda District, which reads as under: S. NO. Name of the applicant Date of Receipt of Application Extent applied. 1. M/s Sagar Cements Limited 4-4-2006 334.09 Acs. 2. M/s Sagar Cements Limited 28.4.2006 222.06 Acs. 31. It is true that the said Mining Lease applications have to be disposed of by giving priority, as per Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and there cannot be any doubt or controversy in relation to the same. 32. In the light of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application of the petitioner requires re-consideration, in the light of the memos which had been relied upon. This Court also had taken into consideration the stand taken in the counter affidavits in this regard. 33. In the light of the facts and circumstances, the order of rejection impugned in the revision and the dismissal order impugned in the Writ Petition are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the competent authority to re- consider the same in accordance with law. 34. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J DATE: --01--2008. KA