WP/37116/2015 of M/s. Raghavendra Mines AND Minerals Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2015

ORDER:

Despite the matter being adjourned six times to enable themining authorities to file a counter-affidavit, no counter-affidavit hasbeen filed till date.

Sri V.Surya Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner,states that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court inW.P.No.26536 of 2015. A copy of the order dated 07.09.2015 passed inthe said writ petition is placed on record.

Perusal thereof reflects that the grievance of the petitioner thereinwas identical to the petitioner’s grievance herein. In the said writpetition, the stand of the State was that a proposal was pending with theGovernment for alienation of the land covered by the mining leases inthe very same area for establishment of an Industrial Hub and there wasconsequently a proposal to terminate all the mining leases in the area. This Court took note of the fact that under Rule 20 of the AndhraPradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, an existingleaseholder had a right to quarry, carry away, sell and dispose of theminor mineral specified in the said lease. Therefore, as long as thelease subsists and is in operation, this Court opined that the leaseholdercould not be prevented from giving effect to his rights thereunder bydenying him dispatch permits. It was on this basis that the earlier writpetition was disposed of directing the mining authorities to issue transitpermits to the petitioner therein for quarrying the mineral andtransporting it. This Court also made it clear that the order would notcome in the way of the authorities from proceeding in accordance withlaw with its pending proposals.

In the present case, the written instructions furnished by theAssistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool, state to the effect thatthe petitioner was granted dispatch permits earlier. However, accordingto the Assistant Director, the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner had expired and he failed to produce an explosives licence and aConsent Order for Operation from the Pollution Control Board.

The aforestated instructions seem to be self-serving as theAssistant Director, on the one hand, conceded that the petitioner wasissued dispatch permits earlier, while on the other hand, he stated thatthe petitioner did not have the requisite permissions for operation. Evenif that be so, it is for the mining authorities to take appropriate action inthe matter for cancellation of the mining lease in accordance with therules. Having failed to do so, it is not open to them to withhold thedispatch permits.

On the aforestated grounds, this Court finds no reason todisagree with the earlier decision in W.P.No.26536 of 2015.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms thereofdirecting the respondent authorities to issue transit permits to thepetitioner herein for quarrying and transporting the mineral covered bythe subsisting lease. This order shall however not preclude theauthorities from taking appropriate action as deemed fit in the matter inaccordance with law.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in thelight of this order. No order as to costs.

___________________________

SANJAY KUMAR, J

Date:31.12.2015

GJ