IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1540 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 13/11/2008 in WP NO : 645 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director G. Janardhan Reddy Ennoble House, Raghavachary Road, Bellary, Karnataka State. 2 G. Janardhan Reddy Managing Director of M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited, Ennoble House, Raghavachary Road, Bellary, Karnataka State. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 M/s. Bellary Iron Ores Private Limited, Rep. by its Vice President (Admn) and Authorised Agent, Sri Srinivasa Murthy, S/o. late A. Subrahmanyam, Aged about 73 Years, R/o. 60/356-A, Modi Bhavan, Hospet Road, Allipur, Bellary, Karnataka State. 2 Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Industries and Commerce, New Delhi. 3 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat at Hyderabad. 4 Director of Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 5 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Anantapur. 6 Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 7 The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 8 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kalyandurg P.S. Anantapur District. 9 The Station House Officer, D. Hirehal, Anantapur District. 10 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Forests Department, Hyderabad. 11 The Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra pradesh Hyderabad. 12 B.V. Srinivasa Reddy General Manager, M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company (Pvt) Ltd., Ennoble Huose Raghavachary Road, Bellary, Karnataka State. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellants : MR.K.RAGHAVA CHARYULU Counsel for the Respondents No.: MR.V.VENKATA RAMANA The Court made the following : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 645 of 2008 Between: M/s. Bellary Iron Ores Private Limited, Rep. by its Vice President (Admn) and Authorised Agent, Sri Srinivasa Murthy, S/o. late A. Subrahmanyam, Aged about 73 Years, R/o. 60/356-A, Modi Bhavan, Hospet Road, Allipur, Bellary, Karnataka State. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Industries and Commerce, New Delhi. 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat at Hyderabad. 3 Director of Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 4 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Anantapur. 5 Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 6 The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 7 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kalyandurg P.S. Anantapur District. 8 The Station House Officer, D. Hirehal, Anantapur District. 9 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Forests Department, Hyderabad. 10 The Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra pradesh Hyderabad. 11 M/s. Obulapuram Mining company (Pvt) Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director G. Janardhan Reddy, Ennoble House Raghavachary road, Bellary, Karnataka State. 12 G. Janardhan Reddy, Managing Director of M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company (Pvt) Limited, Ennoble House Raghavachary Road, Bellary, Karnataka State. 13 B.V. Srinivasa Reddy, General Manager, M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company (Pvt) Limited, Ennoble House Raghavachary Road, Bellary, Karanataka State. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, directing the respondents 1 to 9 to take all necessary action to stop/prevent the respondents 11 to 13 from exploiting/taking away the mineral and iron ore deposits from the mining lease area of the Petitioner admeasuring 27.12 Hectors in Sy.No. 1(P) of H. Siddapuram Village, D. Herihal Mandal, Anantapur District and further direct the respondents 1 to 8 to take such-action to remove respondents 11 to 13 from the said mining area of the Petitioner/lessee and oversee that the Petitioner can carry out the mining operations in its lease without any interference by the respondents 11 to 13 and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1540 of 2008 AND WRIT PETITION No.645 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) When the Writ Appeal came up for hearing, since both the counsel appearing on either side have expressed no-objection for hearing of the Writ Petition along with the Writ Appeal, they are heard together finally and being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard Sri K. Raghava Charyulu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, appearing for respondent No.1. 3. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 13-11-2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.645 of 2008. 4. Appellants are respondent Nos.11 and 12 in the writ petition, and respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 12 are other respondents in W.P.No.645 of 2008. 5. For the sake of convenience, in this common judgment, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Writ Petition. 6. The facts that led to filing of this Writ Appeal are that the petitioner – M/s.Bellary Iron Ores Private Limited, Bellary, Karnataka State, is a lessee of the mining lease in an extent of 27.12 Hectares in Survey No.1 of H.Siddapuram village, erstwhile Raydurg Taluq, D.Hirehal Mandal, Anantapur District. Respondent No.11 – M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company (Pvt) Limited, Bellary, Karnataka State, is another lessee involved in the same kind of mining activity, as that of the petitioner, in an extent of 25.98 Hectares in Survey No.1/P of Obulapuram village, D. Hirehal Mandal, Anantapur District. The said leases were meant for extracting iron ore. Both the villages are undisputedly not only adjacent, but also attached to each other. There is no other land belonging to any third party or the State Government or the Central Government in between these two villages and they are divided by a boundary line, which was fixed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and also by the Department of Survey of India, Government of India, by fixing a point, called as ‘Geometric Trignometric Station’ point / ‘Great Trignometric Station’ point. Since there is some conflict with regard to the full form of ‘GTS point’, for the sake of convenience, we are referring the same as GTS point only. 7. The petitioner originally obtained lease in the year 1962 and the same has got renewed from time to time without any interruption and the lease is in subsistence till 2016. Whereas respondent No.11 originally obtained lease in the year 1964 and got it renewed from time to time without any interruption and the lease is in subsistence till 2017. For quite many years both the lessees have been carrying on mining operations in their respective leased out areas without any dispute. 8. It is an admitted fact that during the subsistence of the lease, the petitioner itself removed the GTS point, which is meant for identifying the boundaries of their mining areas. But that is not the only conclusive factor to decide the boundaries of two particular areas, may be village boundaries or for the purpose of undertaking mining activities. It is only a point to cross-check the actual boundary line fixed by the appropriate Governments. Such a GTS point, which was in existence since long time, had been removed by the petitioner, of course, with prior intimation to the authorities concerned of the Central Government and there is no dispute raised by respondent No.11 for the said action, inasmuch as, all was well at that time. Even when the leases were renewed in late 1990s, there was no dispute with regard to GTS point or related boundaries between the two areas belonging to the petitioner and respondent No.11. 9. The actual incompatibility had started recently and due to which criminal complaint and counter complaints in Crime Nos.2 and 3 of 2008, respectively, were made by both the parties against each other before the concerned Police Stations having jurisdiction. 10. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner as well as respondent No.11 have jointly applied for carrying out the mining activity in the common boundary of H.Siddapuram village and Obulapuram village for relaxation of the buffer zone of 7.5 mtrs. and the same had been granted by the Government of India (Ministry of Mines) on 17-03-2004, which otherwise means that both the mining lessees can exploit the mine in the buffer zone area also without leaving 7.5 mtrs. width. But what is significant to be noted is that though the boundaries of mining areas of H.Siddapuram village and Obulapuram village belonging to the petitioner and respondent No.11, respectively, are fixed, the dispute appears to have now arisen inasmuch as there is no actual bifurcation of buffer zone of 7.5 mtrs. within the boundary lines between the two mining lease areas. In other words, since 17-03-2004 both the parties have been exploiting the iron ore, which is classified as ‘major mineral’ without any dispute. 11. It is also an admitted fact that the areas of mining leases fall within the Reserve Forest area. When incompatibility started, the complaint of the petitioner was that respondent No.11 was high- handedly exploiting the iron ore from the area leased out to it. Same is the grievance of respondent No.11 against the petitioner. Therefore, the dispute had been taken to the notice of the Director of Mines and Geology and also the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, marking copies to various Constitutional authorities. Almost simultaneously, the present writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner. 12. The prayer sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition is as under: “It is, therefore, prayed that the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondents 1 to 9 to take all necessary action to stop/prevent the respondents 11 to 13 from exploiting/taking away the mineral and iron ore deposits from the mining lease area of the petitioner admeasuring 27.12 Hectors in Sy.No.1 (P) of H.Siddapuram Village, D. Herihal Mandal, Anantapur District and further direct the respondents 1 to 8 to take such action to remove respondents 11 to 13 from the said mining area of the petitioner/lessee and oversee that the petitioner can carry out the mining operations in its lease without any interference by the respondents 11 to 13, and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 13. Along with the main relief, the petitioner also sought the following interim reliefs: “It is necessary that the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 10 to take immediate action to prevent/stop respondents 11 to 13 from exploiting /taking away the Iron Ore deposit situated in the mining area of the petitioner i.e., 27.12 Hectors in Sy.No.1 (P) of H.Siddapuram Village, D.Herihal Mandal, Anantapur District, pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice.” “It is also necessary that the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the Police Authorities namely Respondents 5 to 8 herein to register the complaint of the petitioner directed against the respondents 11 to 13 and investigate the same about the highhanded and lawless encroachment made by respondents 11 to 13 into the mining area of the petitioner in 27.12 Hectors in Sy.No.1 (P) of H.Siddapuram Village, D.Herihal Mandal, Anantapur District, pending disposal of the writ petition.” 14. At different stages, interim orders have been granted by this Court. It appears from the record that the Government Pleader for Mines and Geology also submitted that a Survey of India was carrying on operations for the purpose of fixing the location of GTS 57/A16. It also appears that by order, dated 24-01-2008, this Court directed the District Judge, Anantapur, to make local inspection of the area and file a report before the Court relating to the existing state of things. Accordingly, a report, dated 05-02-2008, has been submitted by the District Judge, Anantapur, stating that when enquired with the concerned police officials, they stated that they will follow the directions of this Court. 15. A learned single Judge of this Court, by order, dated 21-01-2008, passed interim orders in the writ petition, the relevant portion of which reads as under: “…………… The learned Government Pleader for Industries had placed before this Court the written instructions dated 20-01-2008 said to have been addressed by the Director of Mines and Geology to the Government Pleader for Industries. It is represented that as seen from the letter of Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, both the petitioners and 11th respondent filed complaints about mutual encroachments. Further, the Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Anantapur, informed that the District Collector, Anantapur, had called for a meeting on 17-01-2008 with officials concerned and initiated them to take up survey immediately and resolve the border dispute. It is also specified that at this stage on 18-01-2008 Sri S.K. Modi, MD of M/s.Bellary Iron Ore (Pvt) Ltd., (Petitioner) approached him and informed that they survey may be taken up after 5 or 6 days since his health does not permit to attend for survey. Further, keeping in view of the complicity of the issue, it is decided to involve officials at higher levels to take up the survey consisting of representatives nominated by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, representative nominated by Commissioner of Survey and Land Records and representative nominated by Director of Mines and Geology after 6 days when Sri S.K. Modi the complainant is ready to attend for survey. Due to this reason the survey could not be conducted as planed earlier.” 16. The learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology filed a final report, dated 17-03-2008, prepared by the State High Level Committee. 17. Therefore, it is obvious that the State Government had appointed a High Level Committee consisting of (1) Chief Conservator of Forest, Anantapur Circle, Anantpur; (2) Divisional Forest Officer, Anantapur; (3) Zonal Joint Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Kadapa; and (4) Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records Department, Kurnool. 18. By order, dated 13-11-2008, a learned single Judge of this Court passed interim order in the writ petition, the relevant portion of which reads as under: “This Court is of the view that to resolve the controversy, that exists between the parties, viz., identification of the boundary, between the two villages, which incidentally constituted the boundaries, between the petitioner and the 11th respondent, it is essential to ascertain, whether the GTS is in existence, at all. The 11th respondent had expressed some reservation, about the official of the Survey of India, who took lead, in installation of the GTS. This Court is of the view that, immediate steps need to be taken, to verify the existence of the GTS, and if it is not in existence, to take steps, to resurrect it, permanently, so that follow up action shall be taken, forthwith. Therefore, the Surveyor General of India, Dehradoon, is directed to depute a person of a fairly superior rank, to verify, (a) whether the GTS – 57/16A is existence as on today, and if it is not in existence, to take immediate steps to ascertain the same, in a permanent way. In view of the urgency in the matter, the Surveyor General shall ensure that, this exercise takes place by 26-11-2008.” 19. Challenging the said order, dated 13-11-2008, the respondent No.11 has filed the present writ appeal. 20. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.11 contended— firstly, that as per Entry 45, List II, Schedule VII of the Constitution of India, the mining is a State subject and Entry 45 should be read along with Entry 18; secondly, that a Writ of Mandamus can be sought for only in cases where a statutory duty is cast upon the authority and there is a demand to exercise that statutory duty and in case of inaction on the part of the statutory authority, exercising of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing Writ of Mandamus would arise; In this connection, it is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.11 that since already the complaint made by the petitioner as well as respondent No.11 have been taken cognizance of by the police concerned and Crime Nos.2 and 3 of 2008, respectively, on the files of Police Stations concerned have been registered and also in view of the fact that the State Government had already constituted a High Level Committee, which had filed its report before this Court, the question of rejection of the demand of performing the statutory obligation does not arise and, therefore, issuance of Writ of Mandamus is not warranted. thirdly, that the second relief sought for by the petitioner is in the nature of seeking the relief of injunction. Therefore, the writ petition does not lie and the appropriate course, in such cases, would be by way of filing a suit for injunction in an appropriate Court. fourthly, that the petitioner had participated in the inspection conducted by the State High Level Committee and, therefore, having participated in the said proceedings, the petitioner cannot now challenge the recommendations of the said Committee and seek interference of the Government of India for the purpose of fixing the GTS point. In fact, marking of GTS point is not the relief sought in the writ petition and it is only an incidental question to resolve the main dispute as regards the identification of the areas of mining operation and the alleged encroachments by one party into the other’s mining area. 21. It is his further contention the disputed land in which mining operations are being carried out by the petitioner as well as respondent No.11 is situated in Forest land and the petitioner, being aware of the said fact, had made the high level officials of Forest Department of the State, in addition to the Mining authorities of the State, as parties to the writ petition. Therefore, it is his contention that the role of Central Government is totally unwarranted, as having no jurisdiction to enter into the controversy of the present nature. 22. In simple terms, it is his contention that since it is a boundary dispute between two villages, which can as well be resolved by the concerned functionaries of the State and that fixing up of GTS point can as well be done by the State Government and the same need not necessarily be undertaken by the Government of India. 23. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner made his submissions on various questions of fact, which have already been incorporated in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment. 24. He submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner along with respondent No.11 had jointly applied for carrying out the mining operations in the common boundary of H.Siddapuram village and Obulapuram village for relaxation of the buffer zone of 7.5 mtrs. and the same was granted by the Government of India (Ministry of Mines) on 17-03-2004. 25. It is also admitted in the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that it is the petitioner who removed the GTS point with the prior intimation to the Central Government. Now, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.11 had highhandedly trespassed into its mining lease area and exploiting the mine in H.Siddapuram village. Therefore, the petitioner made complaint to the police and to the Director of Mines and Geology of the State for appropriate action. Since the authorities did not take any action to prevent respondent No.11 from conducting mining operations in its leased out area, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition. 26. He further submitted that by virtue of the interim orders of ‘status quo’ granted by a learned single Judge of this Court on 21- 01-2008 and as extended by order, dated 08-02-2008, much hardship is being caused to the petitioner. 27. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, the relevant portion of the said interim order, dated 21-01-2008, of the learned single Judge is extracted hereunder: “In the light of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the light of the stand taken by both G.P. for Home and G.P. for Industries on 18-01-2008 and also in the light of the instructions submitted today, status quo obtaining as on today regarding excavation of Iron Ore in H.Siddapuram village to be maintained for a period of ten days.” 28. The said order, dated 08-02-2008, of status quo passed by the learned single Judge had been challenged by the petitioner in writ appeal W.A.No.109 of 2008 and the same was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment, dated 12-02-2008. 29. Learned counsel for the petitioner is more apprehensive of the damage caused to the petitioner, because by virtue of the interim orders, status quo is being maintained as regards the mining activity in H.Siddapuram village belonging to the petitioner alone. In other words, by the said orders of status quo, the petitioner alone is prevented from carrying on the mining operations in its area, which is causing much hardship to the petitioner. 30. In support of his contention that Writ of Mandamus can be issued in the present case, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on various decisions of the apex Court, which are as under: 31. In SHRI ANADI MUKTA SADGURU S.M.V.S.J.M.S.TRUST vs. V.R.RUDANI[1], the apex Court held as under: “the term “authority” used in Article-226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article-12. Article-12 is only relevant for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article-52. Article-226 confers power of the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental rights. The words “any person or authority” used in Article-226 are, therefore, not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They must cover any other person or body performing public duties. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is the relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must exist in the light of the positive obligations owed by the person or authority to the affected party. No matter by what means the duty if a positive obligations exists mandamus cannot be denied.” 32. In PRAGA TOOLS CORPN. vs. C.V.IMMANUEL[2], the apex Court held that a Mandamus can be issued against a person or body to carry out the duties placed on them by the statutes even though they are not public officials or statutory body. 33. While refuting the contentions of the learned counsel for respondent No.11 that a Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued by this Court and on the contrary the question involved is a question of fact which can be gone into only by a civil Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment in CENTURY SPG. & MFG. CO. v. ULHASNAGAR MUNCPLY.[3], wherein the apex Court held as under: “The High Court may, in its exercise of its discretion, decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But the discretion is judicial. If the petitioner makes a claim which is frivolous, vexatious or prima-facie unjust or may not appropriately be tried in a petition