THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.8293 of 2008 Dated 14th June, 2011 Between: M/s.Andhra Cements Limited …Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh (Industries & Commerce (M.II) Department), rep.by Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C.Raghu Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4: AGP for Industries & Commerce Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri A.Rajender Kumar for Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri Satyanarayana Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, for Kum.C.Sindhu Kumari Counsel for respondent No.6: Sri B.Adinarayana Rao for Sri V.L.Surendra The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. I have heard Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4; Sri A.Rajender Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent No.2; Sri Satyanarayana Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, representing Kum.C.Sindu Kumari, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner-company is a manufacturer of cement. It was holding mining lease for Limestone over a large extent of about Acs.628.68 of land in Jayanthipuram Village, Krishna District prior to commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1948. The period of lease earlier held by the petitioner was cut short upto 30.06.1961. The petitioner was granted a lease after commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.452, dated 15.09.1983, granting second renewal for a period of 20 years subject to the condition that the petitioner has to obtain consent of the pattadars. The said condition was subject matter of litigation, reference to which, is not necessary for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition. Be that as it may, respondent No.1 issued show-cause notice, dated 06.04.1994, proposing to revoke the order issued in G.O.Ms.No.452, dated 15.09.1983, and vide G.O.Ms.No.210, dated 06.05.1994, it revoked the said order. Simultaneously, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.220, dated 17.05.1994, calling for applications for grant of fresh mining lease. In response thereto, the petitioner, respondent No.5 and respondent No.6 have filed their applications. The petitioner also filed a statutory revision before respondent No.2 questioning the order of revocation of lease. By final order, dated 03.06.1999, respondent No.2 allowed the revision by setting aside the revocation order and remanded the matter to respondent No.1 with the direction to consider the final order of BIFR, dated 06.06.1994, in Case No.33 of 1990 and then allow the petitioner to until 31.07.1999 to execute mining lease document in the light of in G.O.Ms.No.452, dated 15.09.1993, after due observance of the provisions of the Rules. This order was assailed by respondent No.5 in W.P.No.14841 of 1999. This Court by an elaborate order disposed of the writ petition, wherein it was inter alia held that there was no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by respondent No.2 and remanding the case to respondent No.1 for considering the question of revocation of grant of renewal of lease to respondent No.2 for non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 31 of the Rules. However, by the impugned memo, dated 31.03.2008, respondent No.1, rejected the mining lease applications of the petitioner and respondent No.6. By a separate order, respondent No.1 has granted mining lease in favour of respondent No.5. At the hearing, it has come out that respondent No.6 has filed a revision petition before respondent No.2 rejecting its application for grant of mining lease. The petitioner filed the present writ petition against memo No.14718/M/II(2)/2004-6, dated 31.03.2008, by which, respondent No.1 has rejected the petitioner’s application for grant of mining lease. Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.1 has committed serious procedural illegality in disposing of the applications for grant of fresh mining leases without re-considering its decision to revoke G.O.Ms.No.452, dated 15.09.1983. He further submitted that failure of respondent No.1 in this regard is in violation of the order of respondent No.2 passed in the revision petition and also of this Court in W.P.No.14841 of 1999. Opposing these contentions, Sri Satyanarayana Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing respondent No.5, submitted that even though in form, respondent No.1 has not appeared to have considered the issue relating to revocation of G.O.Ms.No.452, dated 15.09.1983, in substance, it has discussed the said issue and having been satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled for restoration of lease as renewed in G.O.Ms.No.452, dated 15.09.1983, has proceeded to consider the applications of all the applicants for grant of fresh leases. The learned Senior Counsel invited my attention to paragraph-4 of the impugned order in support of his submission. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner failed to question the separate memo, dated 31.03.2008, issued in favour of his client granting mining lease in its favour. Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel representing respondent No.6, has however fairly submitted that there is lapse on the part of respondent No.1 in not considering the issue relating to revocation of G.O.Ms.No.452 before taking up the applications for grant of fresh lease and deciding in favour of respondent No.6. He submitted that his client has already filed a revision before respondent No.2 against the rejection of its application and the same is pending. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for all the parties that the result of the revision petition as confirmed in W.P.No.14841 of 1999 is that respondent No.1 was required to re-consider its earlier decision of revocation of G.O.Ms.No.452, dated 15.09.1983, in the light of the BIFR report. The short question to be considered is whether respondent No.1 has followed this procedure before considering the applications for grant of fresh mining lease. A perusal of the impugned memo shows that it has referred to the applications of the petitioner, in the reference column and the report of the Director of Mines and Geology, dated 12.07.2007. Respondent No.1 stated in the said memo that the petitioner has applied for granting mining lease for Limestone for an extent of Acs.445.04 of land in various survey numbers of Jayanthipuram Village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District and it has received report, dated 12.07.2007, from the Director of Mines and Geology on the proposals of all the three applicants, namely, the petitioner, respondent No.5 and respondent No.6. Thereafter, respondent No.1 went on considering the recommendations on all these applications. In paragraph-4, on which, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance, respondent No.1 has stated that the petitioner has informed that it has proposed to invest Rs.292 crores approximately, that it has admitted that due to various reasons, the company has become sick and a reference to BIFR was made. After considering the pleas of the petitioner, respondent No.1 has concluded that the petitioner does not have full-fledged staff. Respondent No.1 thereafter considered the applications of respondent No.5, the petitioner and respondent No.6 for grant of mining leases. By separate orders passed on the same day, respondent No.1 has allowed the application of respondent No.5 and rejected the applications of the petitioner and respondent No.6. As noted above, respondent No.6 has filed a revision petition against the said rejection order and the petitioner filed the present writ petition. On a careful consideration of the impugned order, I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that respondent No.1 has considered the applications for fresh grant of mining after re-considering its earlier decision to revoke G.O.Ms.No.452. Interestingly, there is not even a reference to either G.O.Ms.No.452 or G.O.Ms.No.210 in the impugned order. The observations that are contained in paragraph-4 of the impugned order were obviously made while considering the petitioner’s application for fresh grant and not in the context of desirability of continuing the lease in favour of the petitioner as renewed in G.O.Ms.No.452, dated 15.09.1983. It is therefore idle to contend that respondent No.1 has followed the directions given by respondent No.2 as confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.14841 of 1999, except to the extent of the observations made by respondent No.1 on merits. Therefore, I find that there is serious procedural illegality as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in disposing of the applications for grant of fresh mining leases by respondent No.1. As regards the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner failed to question the grant made in favour of respondent No.5, in my opinion, failure of the petitioner to question the same cannot validate the impugned order, dated 31.03.2008. The very purpose of remand of the petitioner’s revision by respondent No.2 is that respondent No.1 shall first consider the desirability of revocation of G.O.Ms.No.452 by which the petitioner was holding lease. Unless that issue is decided, the land cannot be said to be available for fresh grant. As respondent No.1 failed to decide that issue in the first place, its orders on the applications for fresh mining lease, in my opinion, are non est in law which do not require to be expressly challenged. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the issue afresh by first considering the issue of revocation of G.O.Ms.No.452, dated 15.09.1983 after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It shall complete this exercise within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Depending upon the result of its decision, respondent No.1 may consider the applications for fresh grant of mining lease. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.10969 of 2008 and W.V.M.P.No.4289 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th June, 2011 VGB