THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15655 of 2000 Date: 30.01.2008 Between: A. Vijayakumari … Petitioner AND The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce (M-III) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.15655 of 2000 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare memo dated 03.09.1999 issued by respondent No.4 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short, ‘the 1980 Act’), the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation Act), 1957 (for short, ‘the 1957 Act’) and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short, ‘the Rules’). The petitioner also sought for invalidation of consequential order dated 22.04.2000. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. From the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner made her application on 09.10.1998 for grant of mining lease for Steatite etc., over an extent of 0.999 hectares in South Dhone RF of Dhone Range, Kurnool District. By memo dated 22.04.2000 a show cause notice was issued by respondent No.3 as to why the petitioner’s application should not be rejected in view of memo dated 03.09.1999 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, A.P., Hyderabad. The petitioner gave her reply on 10.05.2000 to the said notice, wherein she sought sometime to know the grounds on which the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests issued the memo not to entertain her application. However, the Deputy Secretary to Government, Industries and Commerce (M-III) Department, rejected her application vide memo dated 21.06.2000. These proceedings are assailed in this writ petition. The impugned order of rejection is based on the proceedings dated 03.09.1999 issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests. It is mentioned inter alia in the said proceedings that the applicants in the mining leases have been taking advantage of the provision of exemption of compensatory afforestation area for diversion of forest land below one hectare under the 1980 Act, by submitting individual applications for grant of mining leases below one hectare in the names of their close relatives and associates and that in order to obviate such a situation, a decision was taken in the chambers of the Principal Secretary to Government, Environment, Forests, Science and Technology Department, that applications for mining leases in forest areas less than one hectare will not be entertained. Though a contention is raised in para 6 of the affidavit that memo dated 03.09.1999 runs contrary to the provisions of the 1980 Act, 1957 Act and the Rules, neither the specific provisions of the said Acts and the Rules have been referred to nor the learned counsel for the petitioner is present to substantiate the abovementioned averments. The Court cannot be oblivious of the deteriorating environment conditions on account of denudation of forest and depletion of the forest areas. I am therefore of the view that the impugned memo appeared to have been issued with the avowed object of protecting and preserving the ecology by preventing the mining aspirants from obtaining the mining leases in the forest areas through innovative methods by applying for mining leases in different individual names to overcome the statutory obligation of compensatory afforestation. The limited rights vested in the petitioner for claiming lease of mining in a forest area cannot be placed on a higher pedestal than in the larger public interest of saving ecology and environment and at any rate this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not encourage denudation of forests by entrepreneurs whose only aim appeared to be to make money at the cost of environment. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 30.01.2008 ES