IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NOs: 19341 & 21479 of 2008 Between : M/s.Vignesh Cements Rep. by its Managing Partner Smt.V.Rangamani .. Petitioner And The Assistant Director, Mines & Geology, Dachepalli, Guntur District and others .. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Counsel for the Respondents : The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NoS.19341 & 21479 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: 1. These writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order in view of the commonality of the question in bound in both these writ petitions. 2. M/s. Vignesh Cements, the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.19341 of 2008 praying for issuing a writ of mandamus declaring the action of 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings DDis.No.140/2008/E4, dated 17.08.2008 in canceling the NOC issued by the 5th respondent without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to proceed for grant of mining lease to the petitioner based on the NOC issued by the 5th respondent vide proceedings dated 16.11.2007 by suspending the impugned proceedings dated 17.08.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent in the interest of justice. 3. While issuing rule nisi on 06.09.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.25230 of 2008 this Court made the following order: “ A perusal of the impugned order, dated 17.08.2009, discloses that the District Collector has discussed the matter commencing from the stage of issuance of ‘no objection certificate’ to the one of cancellation and made reference to the representations and proceedings that emanated from different authorities. However, he did not choose to issue notice to the only affected person, namely, the petitioner. It is rather surprising that the head of the administration of a District did not feel that before canceling any order/proceeding in favour of a citizen, he must be given an opportunity of being heard. Here shall be interim suspension, as prayed for.” 4. Further in W.V.M.P.No.3577 and 3667 of 2008 on 28.01.2009 this Court made the following order: “In the facts and circumstances of the case, the interim order dated 06.09.2008 passed in W.P.M.P.No.25230 of 2008 is made absolute. However, the writ petitioner shall not press for processing of the mining application in its favour, during the pendency of the writ petition. W.V.M.P. is dismissed.” 5. Respondents 6 to 68 were impleaded by order dated 28.01.2009 made in W.P.M.P.No.37791 of 2008. 6. Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel representing writ petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and would maintain that unless any notice had been given before the cancellation of NOC, the orders cannot be sustained. 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition to be dismissed. 8. Likewise the said M/s. Vignesh Cements filed W.P.No.21479 of 2008 praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not proceeding for grant of mining lease to the petitioner based on the NOC issued by the Tahsildhar, Rentachintala Mandal, Guntur District, inspite of the suspension of the impugned proceedings dated 17.08.2008 issued by the District Collector of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.25230 of 2008 in W.P.No.19341 of 2008, dated 06.09.2008 as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents to proceed with the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of mining lease based on the NOC dated 16.11.2007 issued by the Tahsildhar, Rentachintala Mandal, Guntur District and pass such other suitable orders. 9. This Court ordered W.P.M.P.No.23806 of 2009 by virtue of which respondents 6 to 68 had been impleaded. Sri N. Ravi Prasad, the learned counsel representing petitioner, after taking this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition made certain submissions that in the light of the interim suspension granted in W.P.No.19341 of 2008, this writ petition to be allowed. 10. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology had taken the same stand which had been taken in W.P.No.19341 of 2008. 11. Sri B. Lingaiah Chowdary, representing the contesting respondents had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit filed in support of the implead applications in both the writ petitions and made certain submissions. 12. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of these writ petitions are substantially the same. As can be seen from the relief prayed for in W.P.No.21479 of 2008, the inaction on the part of the respondents in further proceeding with the granting of the mining lease despite the interim suspension granted in W.P.No.19341 of 2008 had been challenged. The respective submissions in both the writ petitions had already been specified above. The nature of the interim order initially made granting interim suspension and the modification made subsequent thereto also had been referred to above. 13. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.19341 of 2008 that the petitioner Smt. V. Ranga mani representing M/s. Vignesh Cements is the managing partner of the firm and it is stated that the petitioner is a partnership firm registered with the Registrar of Firm vide Registration No.55/07. The petitioner Firm made an application to the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Guntur District for grant of mining lease over the lands extent of Ac.689.74 cents in Sy.No.291- 1 etc. 423 etc. and 916 etc., of Goli, Mettagudipadu and Rentachintalal Villages, Rentachitala Mandal, Guntur District for a period of 30 years as the said lands are covered by Line Stone. The said lands belong to the government and suitable for mining operations for quarrying line stone. By Proceedings dt.29.08.2008, the 1st respondent addressed a letter to the Tahsildhar, Rentachintala Mandal for grant of “No- objection Certificate” (NOC) over the lands mentioned above. The Tahsildhar, Rentachintala Mandal after verifying the records issued NOC over the lands extent Ac.402.34 cents situated in Goli and Mettagudipadu Villages. 14. Further it is stated that based on NOC issued by the Tahsildhar, Rentachintala Mandal, the 1st respondent conducted survey over the said lands and collected the sample in 40 different bits. All the samples were sent for chemical examination. The Chemical Examination report was furnished on 29.03.2008 establishing that the lands containing line stone. Therefore, the 1st respondent came to the conclusion that the land is fit for mining operations. 15. It is also stated that with a view to blackmail the petitioner made a representation to the District Collector with the help of the local MLA by stating that some part of the land has been encroached by the villagers and some part of land is being used for grazing purpose and they requested not to grant mining lease in favour of the petitioner. The District Collector addressed letter to the 1st respondent to furnish remarks. The 1st respondent submitted the report stating that the land is fit for mining operations. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsaraopet recommended to cancel the NOC issued by the Tahsildhar. Based on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsaraopet, the District Collector without issuing any notice directly cancelled the NOC issued by the Tahsildhar by proceedings dated 17.08.2008 on the ground that the said land is not notified as mining land in the revenue records. 16. Further it is stated that even though the petitioner is the effected party and the NOC issued by the 5th respondent at the instance of petitioner, the 3rd respondent had not given any notice or opportunity before canceling NOC issued by the 5th respondent. No revenue records in the entire district will be notified that any particular land is mining land. The revenue records simply discloses that the lands are Porumbok lands or Sarkari lands. The 1st respondent is the competent authority to declare that the land is mining land. Admittedly the 1st respondent found that the said lands are fit lands for mining operations. The chemical analysis report discloses that the land is containing line stone. The entire land is consisting rock area. Therefore, raising crop by any encroacher does not arise. Since it is a rock land, it cannot be used as grazing land. But the 3rd respondent without considering the chemical analysis report and opinion furnished by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology erroneously cancelled the NOC without conducting personal inquiry and without giving opportunity to the petitioner. Admittedly the impugned proceedings disclose that there is representation from the local MLA. Based on the representation directed the 4th respondent to conduct enquiry. Even though the petitioner is residing in Door No.1-1A, Main Road and the address of the petitioner is very much clear and the peititioner has been pursuing with the respondents from 29.08.2007 for grant of mining lease, but the 4th respondent stated that the petitioner was in the village till 2007 and later left the village. It is stated that since he did not oblige the illegal demand of the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent without conducting enquiry and physical inspection, addressed to the 3rd respondent that he is not available. When the 4th respondent intends to visit the land, he did not address any letter to the petitioner intimating to attend the land at the time of inspection. Since he did not inspect the land, he did not address letter to the petitioner. The petitioner already informed to the 3rd respondent about the illegal demand made the 4th respondent. It is the habit of the 4th respondent in making illegal demands from various public and finally he was trapped by the ACB on the ground of disproportionate assets. Even though the proceedings of the 1st respondent is very much clear that the land is fit for mining operations, but the 3rd respondent erroneously relied upon the report of the 4th respondent and called the NOC issued by the 5th respondent without conducting any other alternative inquiry. 17. It is also stated that since the impugned order had been issued by 3rd respondent in violation of principles of natural justice prima facie without any enquiry the petitioner approached this Court. 18. In view of the fact that though interim suspension had been granted by this Curt since no further action had been taken the second Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.21479 of 2008 had been filed. The averments made therein also are on similar lines. 19. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.19341 of 2008 it is stated that it is a fact that M/s. Vignesh Cements had filed an application for grant of mining lease for Limestone for a period of 30 years over an extent of 689.74 Acres in Sy.No.29-1-1 etc., of Goli Village 423 etc., of Mittagudipadu & 916 etc., of Rentachinatala Village and Mandal of Guntur District. The said application was received on 29.08.2007 and the same was acknowledged on the same day vide office acknowledgement No.4455/M/2007. Further the 1st respondent had also addressed the Tahsildar of Rentachintala Mandal for issue of No Objection Certificate and classification of the land vide Lr.No.4445/M/2007, dated 29.08.2007. In turn the Tahsildar Rentachintala vide Rc.No. /B/2007, dated 16.11.2007 had issued No Objection Certificate in favour of M/s. Vignesh Cements for grant of mining lease over an extent of 402.34 Acres for a period of 30 years. The copy of the report was received on 14.12.2007 through Range Inspector – II ACB, Vijayawada Range Guntur vide Cr.No.13/RCT- ACB-CJA/2007, dated 07.12.2007 and requested the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology to treat the file as original and continue the lawful process in this regard. 20. It is further stated that the 1st respondent has conducted survey and inspection of the Mining lease applied area on 10.03.2008 and collected the Limestone samples from the applied area and the same were submitted to Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad for chemical analysis of the mineral vide Lr.No.4445/M/2007, dated 13.03.2008. In turn, the Deputy Director Chemist, office of the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad had given analysis report vide Lr.No.26/08, dated 29.03.2008. As per the chemical analysis report, the applied mineral was proved as limestone with grade of CaO in above 48%. 21. Further it is stated that the Range Inspector-II, ACB, Vijayawada Range, Guntur vide Rc.No. /B/2007, dated 16.11.2007 had informed that a case was registered in their bureau against Smt. P. Malathi Annapurna, Tahsildar of Rentachintala and Sri. Sk. Meera Saheb, Revenue Insepector, Rentachintala Mandal of Guntur District. During the course of investigation a file relating to M/s. Vignesh Cement was seized and the same was produced before the Court of SPE & ACB Cases, Vijaywada. The Inspector further informed that a copy of the seized file relating to the M/s. Vignesh Cements had also submitted to the 1st respondent so as to avoid inconvenience to the complainant and hence the request to treat the file as original and continue the lawful process in this regard. 22. It is further stated that Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Tahsildhar of Rentachintala and Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Dachepalli inspected the area applied for mining lease for Limestone by the petitioner on 23.05.2008. The 1st respondent informed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsaraopet that the area is consisting of Limestone and fit for mining purpose. The mining lease applied area is a virgin area and hence, no notification was issued for grant of mining lease. Further it was not notified for grant under Rule 59 of M.C.Rules 1960 as it was not held under lease earlier. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet vide Rc.No.106/2008, dated 29.05.2008 had submitted report to the Collector, Guntur under a copy marked to the 1st respondent. The District Collector, Guntur vide D.Dis.No.140/2008, dated 17.08.2008 issued orders that “the No Objection Certificate earlier issued to the M/s. Vignesh Cements, Rentachintala by Mandal Revenue Officer, Rentachintala is cancelled since it is not notified as mining area as well as issuing authority has acted beyond her power since it is not notified as mining area. It is hereby ordered to keep the subject land reserved for Government purpose”. 23. These are the respective stands taken by the parties. The fact that no objection certificate had been cancelled is not in controversy and the same had been cancelled without notice to the writ petitioner also is not in controversy. It is no doubt true that the second writ petition is filed praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not proceeding for grant of mining lease on the basis of the NOC issued by the Tahsildhar, Rentachitala Mandal, Guntur Distirct, despite the suspension made in the first writ petition. Since the NOC had been cancelled without notice the said order cannot be sustained and on this ground the petitioner is bound to succeed as far as W.P.No.19341 of 2008 is concerned. In the light of the same the W.P.No.19341/2008 is hereby allowed with a further direction to the 3rd respondent to issue fresh notice to the petitioner, hear the objections of the petitioner and take appropriate decision in this regard. Accordingly to the said extent the writ petition is hereby allowed. It is needless to say that in the light of the decision which may be taken by the 3rd respondent in this regard the further proceedings may have to be taken in as much as relief prayed for in the W.P.No.21479 of 2008 is based on the interim suspension granted in W.P.No.19341 of 2008 in the light of the orders made in W.P.No.19341 of 2008 no further orders need be made and it is needless to say that at the appropriate stage in the event of NOC being confirmed as averred by the third respondent the petitioner is at liberty to invoke the appropriate remedy. 24. With the above observation W.P.No.21479 of 2008 is hereby disposed of. W.P.No.19341 of 2008 is allowed and to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ (P.S. NARAYANA, J) 09.09.2009 MD