IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.24325 OF 2009 DATED:29.4.2010 Between: Smt. G. Rama Devi … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh Department of Industries & Commerce (SPIU & SAND) Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep. by its Secretary and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.24325 OF 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) Being the highest bidder in the auction relating to lease of sand quarrying in the year 2007, a lease agreement was executed between the Industries and Commerce Department and the respondent No.5 for a period of two years commencing from 29.9.2007 to 31.3.2009 vide proceedings recorded vide No.7832/Q/Sand/07, dated 29.9.2007 by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Karimnagar. After expiry of the lease, an application was preferred by respondent No.5 seeking extension of the lease till 31.3.2010 which was accepted and extension was granted vide Memo No.11221/SPIU & SAND/2009-1, dated 24.9.2009 followed by consequential proceedings vide No.7832/Q/Sand/07 dated 07.10.2009. Both these orders are challenged by medium of the petition on hand on the ground of lack of power on the part of the respondent authorities to extend the lease giving rise to a question as to whether official respondents do have the power to extend the lease. The answer is readily available from the judicial pronouncement handed down by one of the coordinate benches of this Court in M.V. Siva Prasad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[1]. Relevant paragraphs 22 to 24 are extracted hereunder: “The validity of the amended 1966 rules, as notified in G.O. Ms. No.84 dated 10.4.2007, is not under challenge in any of these writ petitions. The validity of the impugned orders have therefore to be decided in the light of the amended 1966 rules notified in G.O. Ms. No.84 dated 10.4.2007 as it is these rules which are presently in force. Rule 9-L is in two parts. The first limb of Rule 9-L prohibits the competent authority from entertaining any claim made by a successful tenderer/bidder seeking compensation on account of floods or rains or other situation. The second limb of Rule 9-L prohibits grant of extension of lease under any circumstances. Irrespective of the nature of the claim for extension of lease, be it for a valid reason or otherwise, Rule 9-L prohibits the competent authority from granting extension of lease under any circumstances. In view of this prohibition, any order passed by the Government or the Director of Mines granting extension of lease would be ultra vires Rule 9-L of the 1966 Rules. The learned Government Pleader for Industries and the learned Counsel for the respondents who were granted extension of lease by the Government, would however contend that the Government has the power to grant extension of lease under Rule 9-K(3). Rule 9-K(3) confers power on the Government to issue orders/clarifications, if any not specifically mentioned in the implementation of the A.P. Minor and Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The twin limitations under Rule 9-K(3) for the exercise of power by the Government to issue orders/clarifications is (i) to implement the rules and (ii) with respect to matters not specifically mentioned in the rules. The impugned orders granting extension of lease cannot be said to have been passed in the implementation of the 1966 Rules. Since Rule 9-L, which prohibits grant of extension of lease under any circumstances, forms part and parcel of the 1966 Rules the Government does not have the power under Rule 9-K(3) to issue any orders/clarifications granting extension of lease whatever the circumstances may be. The impugned orders passed by the State Government are neither in the implementation of the 1966 Rules nor with respect to matters not specifically mentioned in the said Rules. The orders under challenge in these batch of writ petitions are therefore not referable to Rule 9-K(3) of the 1966 Rules. Since the power of the Government to issue orders/clarifications is limited to the extent provided under Rule 9-K(3), the impugned orders granting extension of lease are ultra vires the 1966 Rules and are, accordingly, quashed.” A bare perusal of the above reproduction makes it clear that in view of the prohibition contained in Rule 9-L of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short, “the Rules”) grant of extension is impermissible. It is by that reason that the Division Bench quashed the order of extension. Apparently situation on facts in both the cases is quite similar, therefore, we toe the line. We will be failing in our duties if we do not place on record the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 that the order of continuation creates a fresh lease in favour of respondent 5. To bring home the point, reliance is placed on Rule 5 of the Rules, which is reproduced hereunder: “5. Quarrying to be under lease or permit:- No person shall undertake quarrying of any minor mineral in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a quarry lease or a permit granted under these rules: Provided that the Government shall have power to grant exemption from obtaining a lease or permit for quarrying any minor mineral in any area in the case of any category of persons, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order granting such exemption.” It is manifest from a plain reading of the Rule that the quarry lease or permit or allotment can be given under the orders passed in accordance with these Rules but, the allotment made in favour of respondent No.5 is in contravention of Rule 9-L of the Rules. We say so because the impugned orders were not passed in pursuance of a fresh auction but admittedly on the application of the respondent 5 for extension of lease. Writ Petition is allowed. Impugned orders are quashed. Interim direction dated 11.11.2009 is made absolute. SANJAY KUMAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 29-4-2010 B. Narsinga Rao [1] 2010 (2) ALD 288 (DB)