WP/26577/2001 of M/s Shiva Shirdi Enterprises Vs The Secretary on 29 December 2004

O R D E R:

Heard both sides.

The petitioner herein, who is an applicant for grant of mining lease,filed this writ petition inter alia seeking for a mandamus declaring theaction of the respondents in not extending the same benefit asgranted by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.21538 of2001 dated 19-03-2001.

The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner had made an application on22-06-1995 for grant of quarry lease for black granite in gap area ofKottalam village, Yadamari Mandal in Chittoor District. Whereupon,the Mandal Revenue Officer, Yadamari Mandal had issued a noobjection certificate followed by the certificate from the District ForestOfficer, Chittoor to the effect that the area applied for by the petitioneris outside the Veerasettipalli Forest Range of Rachur beat andhence, no objection for grant of lease. Accordingly, the third

respondent herein granted lease on 08-07-1997, which wascommunicated to the petitioner on 16-07-1997 and the petitioner waspermitted to commence the lease operations. It is submitted that thepetitioner had invested substantial amounts to an extent of five lakhsand also laid a road to an extent of two kilometres from quarry to themain road. However, as per the proceedings dated 06-08-1997, theAssistant Director of Mines and Geology Chittoor suddenly asked thepetitioner to stop the operations in pursuance of proceedings issuedby the first respondent herein. Challenging the same, the petitionerearlier filed WP.No.24564 of 1997, which was disposed of on02-04-1998 directing the Central Government to pass appropriateorders. However, as the same was not implemented, the petitionerhad filed a contempt case in CC.No.487 of 2000. The main plank ofthe petitioner’s case rests on the ground that in identical situationwhere an application filed by M/s Thirumala Granites, the matterultimately went to the Supreme Court and as per orders in CivilAppeal No.2153 of 2001 dated 19-03-2001, it was directed toconsider afresh in the event of making fresh application and rejectingthe reasons as not in terms of Rule 5(2)(a) to (d) of the Rules. Itfurther observed that the same should be dealt with in accordancewith law and no mining operations can be carried out in the reservedforest area without prior permission from the Central Government.Accordingly, the respondents herein re-considered the saidapplication of M/s Thirumala Granites for the same area. However, though thepetitioner stands in the similar circumstances and with the sameobjections raised earlier, which was stated by the Supreme Court, hiscase was not being considered. It is further submitted that thepetitioner had entered into an agreement on 06-01-1999 forpurchasing the land. However, a final sale deed could not possibly beexecuted since the application was rejected at the instance of M/s Thirumala Granites. In fact, the said application of M/s Thirumala Granites was also rejected on the self same lineswhich led to filing of WP.6355 of 1999 and the same was initiallydismissed by this Court, against which an appeal was filed in W.A.No.1490 of 1999 which was disposed of on 19-04-2000 directingreconsideration of the matter by the Committee constituted by theCentral Government and pass orders afresh. However, on furtherappeal, the Supreme Court of India, in the aforesaid matter, passedthe said orders. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that hisapplication should also be considered on the same lines and on parwith M/s Thirumala Granites. Hence, this writ petition.

In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents herein denying theentire allegations and claim made by the petitioner, it is submitted thatthe petitioner is not entitled to any such relief though admitting thechequered events in the case of M/s Thirumala Granites and furtherstating that in the event of any such application is forthcoming, thesame shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

Having heard on either side and also on perusal of the material onrecord, the only question that falls for consideration is that as towhether the petitioner can be treated on par with M/s ThirumalaGranites for grant of mining lease as sought for. There is no disputeby the respondents to the aforesaid events both in the case of thepetitioner and as well as M/s Thirumala Granites and the rejectionalso stands on the same lines. The reasons as sought to be shownby the respondents herein for non-consideration of the applicationand rejecting the same even in the case of the petitioner herein, asper orders dated |19-03-2000, virtually run on the same lines. Further,it is also to be noted that the area applied for by the petitioner andalso M/s Thirumala Granites is one and the same and the objectionsalso are similar. In view of the same, there cannot be any objectionmuch less a reason to draw any distinction between the petitionerand as well as M/s Thirumala Granites. Any such attempt on the partof the respondents would clearly amount to discrimination. If one i.e., M/s Thirumala Granites is entitled to a mining lease, question ofrejecting the application of the petitioner, which is on similar linesdoes not arise and the petitioner cannot be deprived of the similarbenefit. Except the reasons, as only found in both the cases, no other reason or any objection has been raised by the respondents hereinfor disentitling the petitioner to such lease.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugnedorder dated 19-03-2000 is set aside. The respondents are directed toconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of mining lease on parwith M/s Thirumala Granites and pass appropriate orders inaccordance with law. No costs.

Lrkm.

29-12-2004.

______________________

That Rule Nisi is made absolute as above.

Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this Wednesday, The twenty ninth day of December, 2004.

ASST.REGISTRAR

To

1. The Secretary Minister of Environment, Forests and Wild Life Government of India, New Delhi.

2. The Secretary, Forests and Environment Department, Government A.P., Hyderabad

3. The Director of Mines and Geology, B.R.K.R.Bhavan, Hyderabad

4. The Chief Conservator of Forests of A.P., Hyderabad

5. 2CD copies.

6. Two Ccs to the Government Pleader for Forest, High Court of A.P., High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (O.U.T).