IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.10118 and 10632 of 2008 W.P.No.10118 of 2008 Between: M/s. Maheswari Silica Mines Nellore District & another. … Petitioners And The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary Industry & Commerce (Mines) Department, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri G. Ramachander Rao Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Mines & Geology This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.10118 and 10632 of 2008 COMMON ORDER:- These two writ petitions raised common issues of fact and law and therefore they are taken up for hearing and disposal together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners hold leases for silica sand granted under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, “the Act”). Respondent No.1, which granted leases, issued Memo No.6842/Mines.1(2)/2008, dated 02.04.2008 calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why action shall not be taken to cancel/terminate the mining leases held by them. The said notices were issued in its purported exercise of power under Section 4A(3) of the Act. The petitioners submitted their objections and before orders were passed by respondent No.1, they filed the present writ petitions. At the hearing, Sri G. Ramachander Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both these writ petitions, submitted that under Section 4A(1) of the Act, it is only the Central Government, which is competent to initiate action for termination of the mining leases and that in the instant cases respondent No.1 has taken the initiative by moving the Central Government for permission to issue notices. The learned counsel also submitted that the purpose for which the mining leases are proposed to be cancelled is not comprehended under the provisions of Section 4A(1) of the Act and therefore the show cause notices are not sustainable. In my opinion, having submitted the objections before respondent No.1, there is no necessity for the petitioners to approach this Court even before a decision is taken by respondent No1. Viewed from this perspective, these writ petitions are premature. The issue whether respondent No.1 has power and jurisdiction to issue the show cause notices or not, requires to be determined with reference to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 4A(1) of the Act. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to raise all the pleas, which are legally sustainable, including the incompetence of respondent No.1 to issue the show cause notices and the alleged non-application of provisions of Section 4A(1) of the Act before respondent No.1. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to adjudicate the issues raised by the petitioners on merits in these writ petitions at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to consider the objections submitted by the petitioners on merits and with reference to the provisions of the Act in general and Section 4A(1) in particular and pass appropriate orders thereon. Respondent No.1 shall give the petitioners or their representatives an opportunity of personal hearing to make their submissions before passing the orders and communicating the same to them. If any of the petitioners have not submitted their objections, they are entitled to file the same within a period of four weeks from today. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petitions, WPMP.Nos.13299 of 2008 and WVMP.No.2547 of 2008 in WP.No.10118 of 2008 and WPMP.No.13900 of 2008 and WVMP.No.254 of 2008 in WP.No.10632 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 02.08.2010 ES