HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.26902 of 2010 Date: February 2, 2011 Between: D. Ramana Kumar, S/o.Koteswara Rao, Aged 47 years, Occ:business, M/s.Hi- Grade Minerals, R/o.45/D1, Old Market Road, Cantonment, Bellary, Karnataka State … Petitioner And The Regional Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Govt. of India, Kendriya Sadan, 1st floor, Sultan Bazaar, Koti, Hyderabad … Respondent Order: This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring proceedings letter No.AP/KNL/MP/Fe-24/Hyd, dated 17-02-2010, issued by the first respondent, Regional Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Government of India, as illegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to set-aside the same. By the aforesaid proceedings, approval of mining plan of the petitioner given vide letter dated 30-05-2008, is withdrawn. Facts of the case in brief are as follows: Petitioner, proprietor of M/s.Hi-Grade Minerals, applied for grant of mining lease for iron ore over an extent of 95.00 acres or 38.461 hectares in Un-surveyed Hill Block (USHB) of Mettupalli village, Peapully Mandal, Kurnool District, vide his application dated 23-11-2005. The said application was processed and a decision was taken for grant of lease in favour of the petitioner by proceedings dated 29-09-2007 on condition of submitting approved mining plan as required under A.P.Major Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 framed under Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. The petitioner has got prepared mining plan by a qualified person recognized by the Central Government and the Central Government, vide proceedings dated 30-05-2008 granted approval. Pursuant to grant of such approval, the State Government issued final orders granting lease in favour of the petitioner by G.O.Ms.No.6, Industries and Commerce (Mines-I) Department, dated 07-01-2009 for the area applied. While so, impugned proceedings are issued on the ground that information provided by the petitioner in the approved document was found to be different with that of the information given in Form-I, i.e. the application for grant of mining lease submitted to the State Government. On the aforesaid ground, approval of mining plan earlier given is withdrawn. Mainly, it is the case of the petitioner that basing on the approval granted by the Regional Controller of Mines, the State Government has already granted lease in his favour by issuing G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 07-01-2009; in the light of the same, when the petitioner had undertaken quarrying operations by following the provisions under the Act and the Rules made thereunder, it is not open to the respondents to withdraw the approval of plan without issuing any prior notice to him. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that such an action on the part of the respondents is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter-affidavit, while generally denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that there are discrepancies and concealment of facts by the petitioner; whether such discrepancies and concealment of facts are typographical mistakes or curable discrepancies, the question of issuing notice before withdrawal of approved mining plan does not arise. As per the scheme of the Rules under the 1960 Act, for grant of mining lease for major mineral, the petitioner has to apply to the State Government. Under Rule 22(4) of the Rules, on receipt of communication from the State Government indicating precise area of which lease is to be granted to the applicant, the applicant shall submit a mining plan to the Central Government for the purpose of approval. Further, the applicant shall submit the mining plan duly approved by the Central Government, to the State Government for grant of mining lease for the area covered by the application. In the present case, it is not in dispute that pursuant to approval of mining plan by the Central Government, the petitioner has applied to the State Government and the State Government acted upon the same and issued further final orders in favour of the petitioner. If for any reason approval is to be withdrawn, the petitioner ought to be given opportunity and notice and the approval cannot be unilaterally withdrawn. There need not be any specific rule in this regard, but having regard to the fact that mining lease is already granted to the petitioner consequent to grant of approval of plan by the Union of India, any cancellation or withdrawal should be preceeded by notice and failing to do so will amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, without going into merits of the matter, on the short ground that the petitioner has not been given any opportunity or notice before withdrawing the plan, impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, proceedings letter No.AP/KNL/MP/Fe- 24/Hyd, dated 17-02-2010, issued by the first respondent, Regional Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Government of India, are set aside. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. However, if there are any discrepancies or concealment of facts in the documents filed by the petitioner for approval of mining plan, this order will not preclude the respondents from pass appropriate orders in accordance with law by issuing notice to the petitioner and hearing him. It is also made clear that if any further steps are taken for withdrawal of mining plan, it would be open to the petitioner to avail remedies open under law. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) February 2, 2011 MRR