THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.19446 OF 2010 DATED AUGUST, 2010 BETWEEN M/s.Sangam Minerals … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. And Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.19446 OF 2010 O R D E R The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the registration and the mining authorities of the State whereby it is deprived of a registered lease deed in respect of its mining lease. By G.O.Ms.No.346, Industries and Commerce (M.III) Department, dated 31.12.2008, the Government of Andhra Pradesh granted the first renewal of the petitioner’s mining lease in respect of Laterite and Fire Clay over an extent of 13.967 Hectares in Sy.No.35/3 of Kondaguntur Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, for a period of 20 years with effect from 12.06.2005. Pursuant thereto, the Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, acting through the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Rajahmundry, respondent 3, under proceedings dated 24.01.2009 accorded sanction to the petitioner to work the mining lease for Laterite and Fire Clay over the subject leased extent for the lease period with effect from 12.06.2005 to 11.06.2025 subject to certain conditions. One such condition is that the lease deed in Form-K prescribed under the Mineral Concessional Rules, 1960 (for brevity, ‘the Rules of 1960’) was to be executed and registered. Accordingly, the lease deed was so executed on 24.01.2009 by and between the petitioner and respondent 3. The petitioner claims that it deposited the necessary amounts for the execution and registration of the lease deed on 20.01.2009 itself and that it was informed that any deficit fee would be collected after intimation by the Sub-Registrar, Rajanagaram, East Godavari District, respondent 4. By letter dated 27.01.2009 addressed by respondent 3 to respondent 4, the lease deed was forwarded for registration as per guidelines. The letter states to the effect that the Junior Assistant, one P.Rajesh, was deputed for registration purposes and respondent 4 was requested to regsiter the lease deed. However, the registration did not materialize. On the other hand, by letter dated 06.02.2010 respondent 4 informed respondent 3 that the lease deed executed on 24.01.2009 could not be accepted for registration in view of Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1908’) which stipulated that documents other than Wills should not be accepted for registration unless presented within four months from the date of execution. Respondent 4 therefore advised respondent 3 to get the document freshly executed. Thereupon, it appears that respondent 3 called for an explanation from P.Rajesh, the Junior Assistant, who was deputed to complete the registration formalities, under letter dated 09.03.2010. In response thereto, P.Rajesh stated that he along with the Proprietor of the petitioner concern approached respondent 4 with the lease deed but they were informed that the incumbent in office was new to the Rules and required time. Again, when they met respondent 4 they were advised that new rules would be coming into force and that they would be informed at that stage. He therefore stated that there was no fault on his part in completing the registration of the subject lease deed. Thereafter, respondent 3 addressed letter dated 31.05.2010 to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, respondent 2, informing him of the aforestated developments and requested necessary action to be taken in the matter. By letter dated 22.06.2010, respondent 2 stated that as per Rule 31 of the Rules of 1960 the lease deed, once executed, could not be altered as there is no such provision under the Rules. He accordingly requested respondent 3 to inform the decision of respondent 4 to the petitioner. The information was so conveyed by respondent 3 under letter dated 07.07.2010 addressed to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. The facts aforestated clearly demonstrate that the petitioner is left in the lurch owing to the hidebound attitude and bureaucratic red tape adopted by the authorities concerned. Once the petitioner’s mining lease stood renewed under the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.346 dated 31.12.2008, it is not for the registration authorities or the mining authorities to defeat the same while trying to cover up for their own mistakes. Though the record reflects that the mining authorities claim to have addressed the registration authorities for registration of the lease deed three days after its execution, there is no proof of the said presentation. The Junior Assistant deputed for the purpose stated to the effect that the registration authorities turned them away owing to lack of knowledge of the relevant guidelines. Be that as it may, when the registration authorities, relying upon Section 23 of the Act of 1908, opined that the presentation was beyond the time stipulated therein and requested fresh execution of the document, the mining authorities adopted an equally self-serving adamant stand, relying upon Rule 31 of the Rules of 1960. It is the case of the mining authorities that there is no provision in the Rules of 1960 for alteration of the lease deed, once executed. The end result of this mindless sparring between the two departments is that the petitioner is left without a lawfully registered lease deed in spite of being granted renewal of its mining lease. Pertinent to note, the exchequer is also adversely affected as the petitioner, upon registration of the subject lease deed, would be paying required stamp duty and registration charges. This pedantic approach on the part of the two departments, without resolving the issue so as to serve public interest, therefore requires to be condemned. As the matter stands, there is no proof of the presentation of the lease deed on 27.01.2009 pursuant to the letter of the same date addressed by respondent 3 to respondent 4. The proper course upon such presentation in the normal circumstances would be that a receipt of such presentation would be made available by the registration authorities. In the absence of the same, I do not consider it appropriate to direct the registration authorities to act upon and register the lease deed dated 24.01.2009. Respondent 2 attempted to wash his hands of the matter under letter dated 22.06.2010 by stating that there is no provision in Rule 31 of the Rules of 1960 which permitted alteration of the lease deed, once executed. The present case however does not call for alteration of the executed lease deed, as misunderstood by respondent 2. It is a case of non-execution altogether as the execution effected on 24.01.2009 did not translate into a legally recognized execution by way of its registration. Therefore, for all practical purposes there was no execution of the lease deed. Further, Rule 31 of the Rules of 1960 provides that in the event the lease deed is not executed within six months of the order of the Government granting the mining lease, the State Government has the power to allow such further period as it deems fit for such execution. The Rule is therefore not absolute. It is for the mining authorities to obtain necessary instructions from the Government in view of the factual situation in the present case and execute a fresh lease deed, duly registering the same as per law within the time frame fixed by the Government. There shall accordingly be a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to exercise powers under Rule 31 of the Rules of 1960, execute a fresh mining lease deed within such time frame as may be fixed by respondent 1 and get the same duly registered with respondent 4 in accordance with law. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously and in any event within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforestated direction at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J ________AUGUST, 2010 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/O) PGS