* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR +WRIT APPEAL NO.1810 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION NOS.19355 OF 2009 & 21842 OF 2009 %FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE #Smt. Shaik Nusrath Banu … Appellant Vs. $ The State of A.P. Represented by its Secretary (Mines), Government of A.P., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad – 500 022. And Others … Respondents !Counsel for the appellant : Mr.Pannala Srinivas ^Counsel for the Respondents : G.P.for Mines and Geology; Mr.N.Subba Rao. <Gist: >Head Note: ?CITATIONS: 1) AIR 1993 SC 147 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1810 OF 2008 DATED 23RD OCTOBER, 2009. BETWEEN Smt. Shaik Nusrath Banu … Appellant and The State of A.P. Represented by its Secretary (Mines), Government of A.P., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad – 500 022. And Others … Respondents WRIT PETITION NO.19355 OF 2009 BETWEEN The Perecharla Quarry Workers Labour Contract Co-op. Society Ltd., Rep. by its President, Shaik Abdullah … Petitioner and The State of A.P. Represented by its Secretary (Mines), Government of A.P., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad – 500 022. And Others … Respondents WRIT PETITION NO.21842 OF 2009 BETWEEN Smt. Shaik Nusrath Banu … Appellant and The Principal Secretary to Government, Mines, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad – 500 022. And Others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1810 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION NOS.19355 OF 2009 & 21842 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per SK,J) A chequered litigative history precedes these three cases making it necessary to recount in some detail their factual substratum. The Perecherla Quarry Workers Labour Contract Co-operative Society Limited, Perecherla Village, Medikondur Mandal, Guntur District (for brevity, ‘the Society’), was granted the first renewal of its lease for quarrying Road Metal (RM) over an extent of 8 acres in Survey No.155/A1, Plot Nos.15 and 16 of Chinapalakalur Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District, for a period of ten years under the proceedings of the Deputy Director, Mines and Geology, Guntur, bearing No.2310/Q1/97 dated 16.11.1997. This renewal, under the lease deed executed vide office proceedings No.1741/Q/97 dated 28.03.1998, was from 13.07.1997 upto 12.07.2007. Road Metal is a minor mineral specified under Item-3 of Schedule-I to Rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for brevity, ‘the Rules of 1966’). As per Rule 13(2) of the Rules of 1966, the Society being the lessee had to file its application for the second renewal of the lease before 90 days prior to the expiry of the lease period, i.e., before 13.04.2007. However, the Society failed to make an application within the stipulated time. This was in spite of the Mining authorities informing the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Guntur, under letter dated 23.03.2007 to take necessary steps for filing of the quarry lease renewal application. It was only after the expiry of the stipulated period that the Society filed an application through its President, Shaik Abdullah, for grant of the quarry lease. This application was made on 04.06.2007, i.e, the 38th day before the expiry of the lease period. However, by a notarized affidavit dated 23.06.2007, Shaik Abdullah, the President of the Society, withdrew the said application dated 04.06.2007. Relevant to note, three separate applications were received by the Mining authorities during the month of April, 2007 for grant of a quarry lease over an extent of 10 acres, including the subject 8 acres which was under lease with the Society. These applications were made by (i) Shaik Nusrath Banu (the wife of Shaik Abdul Gani, the Secretary of the Society); (ii) Anjuman-E- Islamia, Perecherla, an organization represented by its President, Shaik Abdul Gani, the Secretary of the Society and (iii) M/s.Alkabir Stone Crusher, Perecherla, represented by its Proprietor, Fatima Atiyyatul Kabir (the wife of Ganje Shahed, who is no other than the elder brother of Shaik Abdul Gani, the Secretary of the Society). Shaik Nusrath Bhanu, Shaik Ganje Shahed and Fatima Atiyyatul Kabir, who had earlier been the members of the Society in their own right stated that they had resigned from the Society and therefore, could maintain their independent applications. While so, the Society again submitted a fresh renewal application through its Director, Gandikota Shaik Tangella, on 26.06.2007. The reason put forth for the making of this application was that the President, Shaik Abdullah, was stated to be far away from the Headquarters and the Secretary, Abdul Gani, was said to have submitted his resignation and therefore, the members of the Society had conducted a General Body Meeting on 26.06.2007 and resolved to authorize Gandikota Shaik Tangella, Director and Managing Committee Member of the Society, to file the quarry lease application. The Divisional Co-operative Officer (FAC), Guntur, addressed a letter in Rc.No.671/2006-B4 dated 27.06.2007 to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, requesting him to consider the application made by the Society through Gandikota Shaik Tangella and grant the lease in favour of the Society keeping in view the livelihood of its 320 member workers. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, vide his letter No.3437/Q/2007 dated 19.07.2007 addressed to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, recommended the grant of the lease in favour of the Society, accepting the application filed by it through Gandikota Shaik Tangella on 26.06.2007. He also recommended the rejection of the applications made by Shaik Nusrath Banu, Anjuman-E-Islamia, Perecherla, Alkabir Stone Crusher, Perecherla and the Society through its President, Shaik Abdullah, on two grounds, viz., (i) that the applications were premature, not being in accordance with Rule 12(4) of the Rules of 1966 and (ii) as the applications by those who were directly or indirectly connected with the members of the Society were contrary to Sections 21 and 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1964’) and the Bye-laws of the Society. At this stage, Writ Petition No.16885 of 2007 was filed by the Society through its President, Shaik Abdullah, challenging the recommendation for renewal of the lease in favour of Gandikota Shaik Tangella on the ground that he was incompetent in the capacity of a Director of the Society to maintain such an application; and seeking a consequential direction to the authorities not to consider the renewal application dated 26.06.2007 made by Gandikota Shaik Tangella for the subject quarry lease. Shaik Nusrath Banu had also filed a Writ Petition, W.P.No.15173 of 2007, seeking a declaration that the action of the authorities in not considering her application dated 16.04.2007 was arbitrary and illegal. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court by order dated 28.03.2008 directing the authorities to consider the applications of Shaik Nusrath Banu and the Society made through its Director, Gandikota Shaik Tangella, duly taking into consideration the objections made by Shaik Nusrath Banu in her petition dated 09.08.2007 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Acting thereupon, the Government of Andhra Pradesh through the Industries and Commerce (Mines-II) Department, issued Memo No.12364/M.II(1)/2007-1 dated 14.05.2008, referring to the order dated 28.03.2008 in Writ Petition No.15173 of 2007 and also the representation dated 09.08.2007 of Shaik Nusrath Banu, and accorded permission to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, to grant the quarry lease in favour of the Society by condoning the delay in the filing of the renewal application by Gandikota Shaik Tangella. Aggrieved thereby, Shaik Nusrath Banu approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.11065 of 2008 challenging the aforesaid Memo dated 14.05.2008, alleging that the same was in violation of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder and also the order dated 28.03.2008 in Writ Petition No.15173 of 2007. She sought a consequential direction to the authorities to dispose of her application dated 16.04.2007 in accordance with law along with other applications. It appears that the Mining authorities proceeded in the matter basing upon the Government’s permission embodied in the Memo dated 14.05.2008 and in due course, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, vide his proceedings No.3571/Q1/2007 dated 21.05.2008 granted the second renewal of the lease in favour of the Society represented by its Director, Gandikota Shaik Tangella, for a period of ten years. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, opined that the applications of Shaik Nusrath Banu, Anjuman-E-Islamia, Perecherla, Alkabir Stone Crusher, Perecherla and the Society through its President, Shaik Abdullah, were premature and accordingly rejected the same under Rule 13(1) of the Rules of 1966. While so, Writ Petition Nos.16885 of 2007 and 11065 of 2008 were dismissed by individual and separate Judgments dated 21.10.2008 by the same learned Judge. Writ Petition No.16885 of 2007 filed by the Society through its President, Shaik Abdullah, was dismissed stating that the President of the Society had left the Headquarters and the Secretary, Shaik Abdul Gani, resigned from office and in such circumstances the General Body of the Society met on 26.06.2007 and authorized Gandikota Shaik Tangella, the Director of the Society, to submit a quarry lease application on behalf of the Society. The learned Judge was of the opinion that Gandikota Shaik Tangella could not be said to be incompetent to file an application for renewal of the lease on behalf of the Society. The learned Judge observed that as the General Body of the Society consisting of 243 members, in its Meeting held on 26.06.2007, resolved to make an application for renewal of the lease and authorized Gandikota Shaik Tangella, the Director of the Society and a Member of the Managing Committee, to make such an application, the writ petition filed by the President of the Society against the interest of the Society was misconceived and accordingly dismissed the same. Aggrieved thereby, the Society represented by its President, Shaik Abdullah, filed an intra- court appeal in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009. In so far as Writ Petition No.11065 of 2008 filed by Shaik Nusrath Banu is concerned, the learned Judge took note of the fact that there was no specific provision in the Act of 1957 and the Rules of 1966 for condonation of delay in making an application for renewal of the lease but was inclined to accept the submission made in support of the impugned Memo dated 14.05.2008, relying upon Rule 11(1)(b) of the Rules of 1966. Having stated so, the learned Judge went on to observe that even assuming that the impugned Memo dated 14.05.2008 was illegal in the absence of a specific empowering provision in the Act of 1957 or the Rules of 1966 for condoning the delay in the making of a renewal application, there was no bar under the Act of 1957 or the Rules of 1966, to consider the said renewal application dated 26.06.2007 as an application for a fresh lease along with other applications. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the application made by the Society through Gandikota Shaik Tangella stood higher in the order of preference specified under Rule 12(2) of the Rules of 1966 and enjoyed an advantage over the application made by the petitioner- Shaik Nusrath Banu. The learned Judge therefore held that even assuming that in the absence of any statutory provision, the Government ought not to have condoned the delay in the filing of the renewal application and consequently the renewal of the lease in favour of the Society represented by its Director, Gandikota Shaik Tangella, was illegal; the order of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, dated 21.05.2008 granting the lease in favour of the Society basing on the said application could as well be treated as a fresh lease and did not warrant interference by the Court. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner-Shaik Nusrath Banu carried the matter in appeal by way of W.A.No.1810 of 2008. It is interesting to note that in the Judgment dated 21.10.2008 in Writ Petition No.11065 of 2008 reference is made to the order passed on the same day in Writ Petition No.16885 of 2007. However, in the Judgment dated 21.10.2008 in Writ Petition No.16885 of 2007 no reference is made to the order of the same date in Writ Petition No.11065 of 2008. Though the Society represented by its Director, Gandikota Shaik Tangella, the Mining authorities and the authorities of the Co-operation Department of the State, were parties to both the writ petitions and consequently, the two writ appeals, curiously none of them took any steps to seek a joint hearing of the two appeals or place on record in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009, the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.11065 of 2008 though it related to the same issue. Being unaware of the order dated 21.10.2008 in Writ Petition No.11065 of 2008 upholding the order dated 21.05.2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, granting renewal of the lease to the Society represented by its Director, Gandikota Shaik Tangella, a Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us (SK,J) was a member, heard the matter on its own merits. It is relevant to note that during the pendency of this Writ Appeal, a new entrant made his appearance in this imbroglio, viz., S.K.Mastan Vali claiming to be the President of the Society. It was his case that the General Body of the Society in its Meeting held on 26.03.2008 expelled Shaik Abdullah, the President, and elected him as the President of the Society. In W.A. No.467 of 2009, the Division Bench found on facts that the authorities of the Co-operation Department of the State were biased and had shown official favouritism to Gandikota Shaik Tangella and that Gandikota Shaik Tangella, being a Director of the Society and a Member of the Managing Committee, did not have the authority as per the provisions of the Act of 1964 to convene a General Body Meeting. Further, the Bench also found that the resolution authorizing him to apply for renewal was not signed by 243 Members of the Society, as erroneously observed by the learned single Judge but only by 13 Members. The Bench also found that Gandikota Shaik Tangella had taken a challan for making payment to the Mining authorities, on 25.06.2007, i.e., one day prior to the resolution passed by the so-called General Body of the Society in his favour. In such circumstances, the Division Bench opined that the application dated 26.06.2007 made by the Society through its Director, Gandikota Shaik Tangella, ought not to have been forwarded to the Mining authorities with the recommendation of the Co-operation Department. The Bench also observed that as on the date of the said recommendation dated 27.06.2007 by the Divisional Co-operative Officer (FAC), Guntur, Shaik Abdullah was still the President of the Society and had not been removed from that post. Accordingly, the Division Bench quashed the proceedings of the Divisional Co-operative Officer (FAC), Guntur, in his letter bearing Rc.No.671/2006-B4 dated 27.06.2007 and the consequential proceedings of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur District, in letter No.3437/2007 dated 19.07.2007 recommending the grant of lease for a period of ten years in favour of the Society represented by its Director, Gandikota Shaik Tangella. The Bench made it clear that all further actions which were taken in pursuance of the above mentioned proceedings were liable to be quashed and were accordingly quashed. The Bench further made it clear that if the Society represented by its President or Vice President made an application for renewal of the quarry lease, the respondent authorities should consider the same and pass appropriate orders on it in accordance with law. In the light of the order of the Division Bench setting at naught not only the proceedings dated 27.06.2007 of the Divisional Co-operative Officer (FAC), Guntur, and the proceedings dated 19.07.2007 of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, but also the consequent further actions, the permission granted by the Government for condonation of the delay in the filing of the renewal application, vide its Memo dated 14.05.2008, and the consequential proceedings dated 21.05.2008 of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, granting the second renewal of the quarry lease to the Society represented by its Director, Gandikota Shaik Tangella, also stood nullified. In that view of the matter, no further orders, strictly speaking, need to be passed in Writ Appeal No.1810 of 2008 arising out of Writ Petition No.11065 of 2008 filed by Shaik Nusrath Banu challenging the Government’s Memo dated 14.05.2008. However, as certain aspects dealt with by the learned single Judge in the order dated 21.10.2008 passed therein have a crucial bearing on the resolution of the issues raised in the other two matters before us, we propose to deal with the challenge to the order in Writ Petition No.11065 of 2008 also on its own merits. As stated supra, no steps were taken by the parties concerned, some of whom were well aware of the pendency of the two writ appeals before the same Division Bench, to link up the hearing of both the appeals. Writ Appeal No.1810 of 2008 therefore continued to progress in its own course while W.A.No.467 of 2009 was decided. As matters stood thus, taking advantage of the concluding observation made by the Division Bench in its order dated 14.07.2009 in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009, with regard to the filing of a proper renewal application by the Society and its consideration as per law, the Mining authorities, acting through the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, issued fresh proceedings vide Proc.No.4977/Q1/2009 dated 25.08.2009. It appears that after the order was passed in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009 on 14.07.2009, a fresh quarry lease renewal application was made by the Society through its President, S.K.Mastan Vali, on 15.07.2009. Applications were also made by Alkabir Stone Crusher, Perecherla on 17.07.2009 and the Society through its Ex-President, Shaik Abdullah, on 19.08.2009. Having referred to the earlier proceedings dated 21.05.2008 which were set at naught by the order in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, in his revised proceedings dated 25.08.2009, referred to the concluding observation of the Division Bench that if the Society represented by its President or Vice President made an application for renewal of the quarry lease, the same should be considered by the respondent authorities and an appropriate order should be passed thereon in accordance with law, and observed that as per the information furnished by the Divisional Co- operative Officer (FAC), Guntur, in his letter No.4880/Q/09 dated 06.08.2009, S.K.Mastan Vali and Shaik Alla Bhakshi were the newly elected President and Vice President of the Society from 20.04.2008. Stating that the applications made by Alkabir Stone Crusher, Perecherla and the Society through its Ex-President, Shaik Abdullah, were liable to be rejected as per the order of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009, in view of the renewal application filed by the President of the Society, the authority granted the renewal of the quarry lease in favour of the Society represented by its President, S.K.Mastan Vali, stating that the action was as per the orders of this Court in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009. The renewal was for a period of ten years with effect from 13.07.2007 to 12.07.2017. Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 25.08.2009, the Society represented by its Ex-President, Shaik Abdullah, filed Writ Petition No.19355 of 2009. Similarly, Shaik Nusrath Banu filed Writ Petition No.21842 of 2009 challenging the proceedings dated 25.08.2009. Shaik Nusrath Banu also filed an application in WAMP No.2377 of 2009 in her pending Writ Appeal, W.A.No.1810 of 2008, seeking suspension of the proceedings dated 25.08.2009. Notice was served upon the contesting parties in Writ Petition No.19355 of 2009 and separate counter affidavits are filed by the Society represented by its President, S.K.Mastan Vali, the fifth respondent therein and also the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Guntur, the sixth respondent. Writ Petition No.21842 of 2009, on the other hand, came up for admission before a learned single Judge of this Court on 13.10.2009 and was directed to be listed along with Writ Appeal No.1810 of 2008 and Writ Petition No.19355 of 2009 which were already before us. Though notice has not been issued to the respondents in Writ Petition No.21842 of 2009, it is relevant to note that the parties thereto are already before us in the connected cases, W.A.No.1810 of 2008 and W.P.No.19355 of 2009. Further, the issue raised is identical to that in W.P.No.19355 of 2009 and does not require any fresh pleadings from the respondents therein. Therefore, we propose to dispose of W.P.No.21842 of 2009 also by way of this common Judgment at the stage of admission itself. As the proceedings dated 25.08.2009 are substantially in issue in Writ Petition No.21842 of 2009 filed by Shaik Nusrath Banu, we do not propose to pass any orders on the application filed by her in WAMP No.2377 of 2009 in W.A.No.1810 of 2008 seeking suspension of the said proceedings. The said WAMP is therefore liable to be dismissed. These, then, are the underlying facts lending support to the long drawn litigation surrounding the subject quarry lease. The facts aforestated put it beyond doubt that all is not well with the Society. Several persons claiming to be the authorized representatives of the Society are litigating on its behalf. However, it is not for this Court to decide the disputes amongst these warring members of the Society who are claiming its leadership. It is brought to our notice that this dispute is substantially in issue in a pending proceeding before the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Vijayawada. We therefore do not consider it appropriate to make any observations with regard to the manner in which this Society has been operating or the conduct of the various warring parties, claiming leadership over its affairs. The cases before us are amenable to resolution on issues other than this and accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate. As the matter stands, the earlier proceeding dated 21.05.2008 granting the second renewal of the lease in favour of the Society represented by its Director, Gandikota Shaik Tangella, no longer survives in view of the Judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009. Similarly, the permission given by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide Memo dated 14.05.2008 for condoning the delay in the filing of the renewal application dated 26.06.2007 by the Director of the Society, Gandikota Shaik Tangella, also does not survive. The issue now boils down to the validity of the proceedings dated 25.08.2009 passed by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, granting the second renewal of the lease in favour of the Society represented by S.K.Mastan Vali, claiming to be the present President. It is relevant to note that the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, bases the grant of this second renewal only on the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court in the concluding portion of its Judgment dated 14.07.2009 in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009. It is however relevant to note that the Division Bench specifically stated that if the Society made an application for renewal of the quarry lease through its President or Vice President, the same was to be considered in accordance with law. Therefore, it is not open to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, to baldy state that the grant of the second renewal was as per the above order dated 14.07.2009 in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009. In fact, the impugned proceedings dated 25.08.2009, which are under challenge in W.P.Nos.19355 and 21842 of 2009, do not disclose any consideration of the matter whatsoever, much less, in accordance with law as directed by the Division Bench. The subject quarry lease is in respect of Road Metal, a minor mineral covered by the Rules of 1966. Rule 13(2) of the Rules of 1966 makes it clear that an