WP/45047/2016 of B.SRINIVASA RAO GUPTA, VIZIANAGARAM DIST Vs SECY, MINISTRY OF MINES, NEW DELHI & 4 OTHERS on 31 December 2024

1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Mines-IVSection, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.Section, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.

2. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government,Industries & Commerce (M.lll) Department, A. P. Secretariat, Guntur,Andhra Pradesh.Industries & Commerce (M.lll) Department, A. P. Secretariat, Guntur,Andhra Pradesh.

3. The Director of Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh,Guntur.Guntur.

4. The Asst. Director of Mines & Geology, Vizianagaram[District][ at]Vizianagaram.Vizianagaram.

5. Indian Bureau of Mines, Rep. by its Regional Controller[of][ Mines][ Indian]Bureau of Mines, Room No. 603, 6'^ Floor, CGO Towers, Kavadiguda,Secunderabad - 500 080.Bureau of Mines, Room No. 603, 6'^ Floor, CGO Towers, Kavadiguda,Secunderabad - 500 080.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybepleasedtoissueanappropriateWrit,Orderordirectionmoreparticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action ofthe respondents in not approving and granting mining lease of ManganeseOre in respect of the applied area admeasuring 34.804[hectares][ situated][ in]

SurveyNos.92&93ofGarikipetaVillage,NellimerlaMandal,Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh in pursuance of the Letter of Intentdated02.07.2009issuedbyR2byamisconceivedanderroneousconstruction of the saving clause provided under Sec 10A (2) (c) of MMDRAmendmentActincludingthecommunicationofR2inLetterNo:8892/M.Ill(2)/2016 dated 29.08.2016 asillegal,arbitrary,ultraviresandunconstitutional and resultantly direct the respondents to immediately granta mining lease of Manganese Ore for the Petitionerin the appliedareaadmeasuring 34.804 hectares situated in Survey No. 92 & 93 of GarikipetaVillage, Nellimerla Mandal, Vizianagaram District,[Andhra][ Pradesh.]

LA. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 55552 OF 2016)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the[circumstances]statedin the affidavit filedin support of the writ petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to direct the Respondents to forthwith process for grantingminingleaseofManganeseOreforthePetitioner'sappliedareaadmeasuring 34.804 hectares situated in Survey No.92 & 93 of GarikipetaVillage, Nellimerla Mandal, Vizianagaram District,[Andhra][ Pradesh][ without]further reference to the procedure under the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015,pending the disposal of the Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. PILLIX LAW FIRM

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 5

: SRI P. PONNA RAO, DEPUTYSOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGYWRIT PETITION NO: 42018 OF 2016

Between:

A.S.V.Prasad, S/o. Venkataratnam, aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/oFlat No. G-A-2, Dolphin Apartment, R.K.Beach Road, Visakhapatnam-530020,Andhra Pradesh.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry[of][ Mines,][ Mines-IV]Section, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.Section, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.

2. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary[to.] GovernmentIndustries & Commerce (Mill) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Guntur,Andhra Pradesh.Industries & Commerce (Mill) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Guntur,Andhra Pradesh.

3. The Director of Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra[Pradesh,]Guntur.Guntur.

4. The Asst. Director of Mines & Geology, Vizianagaram[District][ at]Vizianagaram.Vizianagaram.

5. Indian Bureau of Mines, Rep. by its Regional Controller of Mines^ IndianBureau of Mines, Room No. 603, 6*'^ Floor, CGO Towers, Kavadiguda,Secunderabad - 500 080.Bureau of Mines, Room No. 603, 6*'^ Floor, CGO Towers, Kavadiguda,Secunderabad - 500 080.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularlyoneinthenatureofWritof Mandamusdeclaringtheactionoftherespondents in not granting mining lease of Manganese Ore in respect ofthe applied area admeasuring 7.041 hectares situated in Survey No. 173 Pof BP Varakatta Village, Chipurupaili Mandal, Vizianagaram District, AndhraPradeshin pursuance of the L01dated 08.05.2008 issued by R2by amisconceived and erroneous constructionof the saving clause providedunder Sec 10A(2)(c)of MMDR Amendment Actasillegal,arbitrary,ultravires andunconstitutional andresultantlydirect therespondentstoimmediately grant a mining lease of Manganese Ore for[the][ Petitioner][ in][ the]applied area.

I.A. NO:1 OF 2016rWPMP. NO: 51802 OF 2016)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying thatin the[circumstances]stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court maybe pleased to direct the Respondents to process for granting mining lease ofManganeseOreforthePetitioner'sappliedareaadmeasuring7.041

X

hectares situated in Survey No. 173 P of BP Varakatta Village, ChipurupalliMandal, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh without further reference tothe procedureunderthe MMDR Amendment Act,2015,pendingthedisposal of the Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. PILLIX LAW FIRM

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 5: SRI G.ARUN SHOWRI(CENTRAL GOVT. COUSEL)

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

The Court made the following; COMMON ORDER

APHC010157452009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3310]

TUESDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NOs: 45047 and 42018 OF 2016

WRIT PETITION NO: 45047 OF 2016

Between:

B. Srinivasa Rao Gupta...PETITIONER(S)

AND

Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Mines,...RESPONDENT(S)Mines-IVSection, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. M/S PILLIX LAW FIRM

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. G.P FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

2. DEPUTY SOLICOTOR GENERAL

The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER:

W.P.No. 45047 of 2016is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particuiariy[one][ in][ the][ nature][ of]Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not approvingand granting mining lease of Manganese Ore in respect of the applied areaWrit of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not approvingand granting mining lease of Manganese Ore in respect of the applied area

admeasuring 34.804 hectares situated in Survey Nos. 92 and 93 of GarikipetaVillage,NellimerlaMandat,VizianagaramDistrict,AndhraPradeshinpursuance of the Letter of Intent dated 02.07.2009 issued by R2 by amisconceived and erroneous construction of the saving clause providedunder Sec 10A(2)(c) of MMDR Amendment Act, including[the]communicationof R2 in Letter No 8892/M 1112/2016 dated 29.08.2016as illegal, arbitraryultravires and unconstitutional and resultantly directtherespondentstoimmediately grant a mining lease of Manganese Ore for the Petitioner in theapplied area admeasuring 34.804 hectares situated in Survey No 92 and 93of GarikipetaVillage,NellimerlaMandal,VizianagaramDistrict,AndhraPradesh and pass such other orders....’’

W.P.No. 42018 of 2016 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, seeking the following relief; ^Order or direction more particularly one in the nature ofWrit of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not grantingmining lease of Manganese Ore in respect of the applied area admeasuring7.041hectaressituatedinSun/eyNo. 173 Pof B.P.VarakattaVillage,Chipurupaili Mandal, Vizianagaram District Andhra Pradesh in pursuance ofthe LOI, dated 08.05.2008 issued by R2 by a misconceived and erroneousconstruction of the saving clause provided under Sec.10A(2)(c)of MMDRAmendment Act asIllegal,arbitrary,ultravires andunconstitutionalandresultantly direct the respondents to immediately grant a mining lease ofManganese Ore for the Petitioner in the applied area and pass such otherorders...”

2. Heard M/sPillix Law Firm,learned counselfor thepetitioners;learnedAssistantGovernmentPleader,MinesandGeologyandnorepresentation for the Central Government.

3. Since the facts and issue involved in all the Writ Petitions,I finditexpedient to decide these matters by a Common Order.

4. For the sake of convenience, W.P.No.45047 of 2009is taken as aleading case.

5. LearnedcounselforthepetitionerswouldcontendthattheGovernment of A.P after careful examination of the proposal of the Director ofMines and Geology has issued a Memo dated 02.07.2009in proposing togrant lease over an extent of 34.804 hectors and directed the petitioner tosubmit mining plan to Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM)[and][ also][ obtain][ clearance]fromPollution Control Board. More than14 months thereafter,videletterdated 01.09.2010 the Government of India, Ministry[of][ Mines][ informed][ that][ the]Ministry has come to conclusion that the area recommended for mining leaseby the State Government has not been prospected and the reports of theGeological Survey of India towards mineralization of the subject area do notindicate categorical mineral reserves as per the United[Nations][ Force][ Work]Classification (UNFC) and that these proposals do not satisfy the provisionsunderSections5(2)(a)oftheMMDRAct.Consequently,theStateGovernmentwasdirectedtofurnishconcretedetailsofevidenceofmineralization as per UNFC classification or to consider[the]said areaforprospecting license and to submit fresh proposals. Pursuant to the same, theStateGovernmenthasresubmittedtheproposalofthepetitionerstoreconsider the matter to the Central Government. Since the 1®* respondent didnot respond the same, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.22490[of][ 2011][ and][ this]Court disposedofthe sameon21.09.2011withadirectiontothe1Strespondent to take appropriate steps in the matter,[but][ in][ vain.][ Therefore,][ the]

petitioner made a representation dated 28.01.2015 tothe2"*^ respondentrequesting to grant mining lease under the saving clause viz., 10A(2)(c) of thendAmendment Act, 2015. Thereafter, vide Memo dated 06.08.2015the2respondent accorded permission to the petitioner to exploration workin theapplied area as the case of petitioner falls under saved cases as per Clause10(a)(2)(c)of the MMDR AmendmentAct.Whileso,videletterdated29.08.2016, the 2"*^ respondent while elaborately explaining the entire factualback ground of petitioner’s Mining Lease Application, sought permission of the1®* respondent to withdraw ‘letter of intent’ issued by the State Governmentand reject the permission granted to the department to conduct exploration.Therefore, the present writ petitions came to be filed.

6. No representation on behalf of Respondent/ Central Government.The respondents have failed to file counter-affidavit and as per Rule 12(1) ofthe Writ Rules, the right of filing of the counter-affidavit is forfeited by an orderof this Court dated 25.11.2024.

7. The 1®‘ respondent filed counter-affidavit whereinit was stated thatthe applications of petitioners having been made for grant of mining lease inrespect of Manganese Ore being erred to the extent of claiming saving undersection 10A(2)(C) on the basis of the letter written by the State Governmentseekingthe previous approval of the Central Government asconstituting‘Letter of Intent’ and thereby erroneously concluding that the applicationsaresaved under Section10A(2)(c). As has been explained,thestandardorcriterion or rather the sine qua non which would have rendered an application made for grant of mining lease in respect of a Scheduled[Mineral][ to][ be][ saves]from being rendered ineligible was whether, before[the][ commencement][ of][ the]Amendment Act, the Central Government granted its previous approval. Theletterofintentistobeconstruedtomeanaletter issuedby the StateGovernment to grant a mining lease in respect of Non-Scheduled[minerals.]Theprovisionsandconstructionofsection10-Aaretobeinterpretedcontextually and in a harmonious manner keeping in mind the object sought tobe achieved.

8. It is further contended a mining lease cannot be granted in a mannerwhich is not provided in the Statute.It is a law laid down by the Hon’ble ApesCourt in “Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd.,v. State[of][ Karnataka]and Others„ithat grant of mineral concessionsistobe donestrictlyinaccordance with the statutory provisions and when a state vests certain powerin an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authorityhas to exerciseit only in the manner provided in the statute itself failing whichthe decision would be rendered illegal.It is further[contended][ that][ the][ Hon’ble]Apex Court also held that the grants must be made in[accordance][ with][ the]provisions of the Act and Rules and no other consideration;[and][ that][ the][ State]Government cannot grant mining leases keeping in mind any considerationsapart from the ones mentioned in the MMDR Act and MC rules. Therefore, thepetitioners are not entitled to claim any relief in this writ petition and requested to dismiss the same.

9. Perused the record.

10. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners placed on recordthe decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in “G. Lakshmi NarayanaReddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others’’^ whereinit was held atpage 15, which reads as follows:- “Recommendation sent by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2 byway of memois only an interdepartmental communication betweentwoofficers and it is a step towards granting mining lease.Interdepartmentalcommunication is only for limited purpose of communicating from one[ officer]to the other officer and it is not a conclusive decision taken by any officer.Even otherwise, such interdepartmental communication cannot be construedas a letter of intent.Thereis a lot of difference between notification andmemo. Notification means only notifying particular Act or Rule in the Gazetteof State. Only from the date of such publication in the Gazette,the ruleenacted is deemed to have been came into force unless the rule otherwisespecifies. A memorandum, more commonly known as memo^Isashortmessageor record usedfor Internal communicationinabusiness,andprimary form of internal written communication. Therefore, the memo is onlyinternal correspondence between the two branches of the department or twooffices, but that is not the communication to the public. Communication to thepublic is only by way of Gazette notification of the State. The memo cannot beconstrued as an order, but it is only an interdepartmental communication.Hence, the memo cannot be said to be an executive order, but it is only acommunication by the second respondent to the District Collectorcum-DistrictMagistrate.

In Messrs. Ghaio Mai and sons v. State of Delhi and others^, theSupreme Court had an occasion to decide an identical question of Issuing ^ AIR 1959 SC 65

memos. The Apex Court while decided the question as[to][ whether][ the][ letter][ in]question u/as the order of the Chief Commissioner or[not] and[ held as][ follows:]

“In the first placeit is an inter-departmental communication.Inthesecond placeit is written with reference to an earlier communicationmade by the Excise Commissioner, that is to say, ex facie,it purportsto be a reply to the letter's letter of August 31, 1954. In the third placethe writer quite candidly states that he had been" directed to say "something by whom, it is not stated. This makes it quite clear that thisdocument is not the order of the Chief Commissioner but only purportsto be a communication at the direction of some unknown person-of theorder which the Chief Commissioner had made. Indeed in paragraph 7of the respondents' statement filed In the High Court on February2,1955, this letter has been stated to have " conveyed[the][ sanction][ of]the Chief Commissioner of the grant of license to the 5th respondent''.A document which conveys the sanction can hardly be equated withthe sanction itself Finally the document does not purport[to][ have][ been]authenticatedinthe forminwhichauthenticationisusually made.There is no statement at the end of the letter that It has been written"by order of the Chief CommissionerFor all these reasonsitisimpossibletoreadthisdocumentastheorderoftheChiefCommissioner. ”

For the reasons stated above, the Apex Court held that,[there][ lA/as][ no]valid order granting the L.2 license.The letter in question was an interdepartmentalcommunicationwrittenwithreferencetoanearliercommunication made by the Excise Commissioner. Ex facie,it purported tobe a reply to the Excise Commissioner's letter. Hence,the letter is not anorder, but only a memo and not required to comply with the requirementsunder Article 166(2) of the Constitution of India. In view of the law declared byvariousCourts,suchinterdepartmentalcommunicationcanneverbeconstrued as an order or Letter of Intent and the same cannot be describedas letter of intent to bring it within clause 10 (a) (1) (c) of the Act.

Since this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decisions[of][ the]firstrespondent while exercising extraordinary power, nnjder[Article][ 226]of the Constitution of India, it is difficult to accept that the recommendation made bythe third respondent to first respondent by way of Inspection Reporttoconstrue the same as Letter of Intent Is not acceptable and on the other hand,when there is a specific bar in the Act itself to grant mining lease, invalidatingthe applications pending as on the date of MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (ActNo.10 of 2015) came into force. Merely because, the application is pendingfor pre-grantproceduralcompliance,nothingisattributabletotherespondents. Therefore,I find no merit In the writ petition and thesameIsliable to be dismissed and consequently, the writ petitionisliableto bedismissed, holding that the Inspection Report is not a Letter of Intent to bringthepetitioner’scasewithinthefoldofSection10A(2)(c)of MMDRAmendment Act, 2015.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued thatthe1respondent never questioned the validity of Letter of Intent dated 02.07.2009issued by the 2"“ respondent in the instant case. Even the queries with regardto mineralization have been clarified by the State Government. Thesaid lettergranting mining lease in principle have been issued following age old practiceof the State Government to first issue Letter of Intent and recommend thegrant to the applicant. Once the State Government disposes of a miningapplication withits recommendationsin terms of Rule 63-AofMineralsConcessions Rules, the Central Government cannot refuse or deny the grantexcept in accordance with Law.

12. In the instant case, the 1®‘ respondent under a statutory obligation toapprove the mining after issuance of Letter of Intent dated 02.07.2009 afterlapse of about 7 72 years amounts to discriminationin the eye of law ascontended by learned counsel for the petitioners.

13. Therefore, taking into consideration of all these aspects,it is betterto re-examine the case of the petitionersin terms of the existing rules andprocedure and shall follow the decisions stated supra and pass appropriateorder withregardtograntof miningleaseof ManganeseOreforthePetitioners in respect of the subject land.

14. In view of foregoing discussion, this Court is inclined to dispose ofthe writ petitions, while directing the respondents[to][ reconsider][ the][ case][ of][ the]petitioners and pass appropriate reasoned orderin accordancewithrulesexisted, after affording an opportunity of hearing of the petitioners, within two(02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this[order.]

15. With the above direction, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. Thereshall be no order as to costs.

16. The miscellaneous applications pending,if any,shallalso standclosed.

Sd/- B PRASADA RAOASSISTANT, REGISTRARISECTI0^~0FF1CER

//TRUE COPY//

To,

1. The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Mines, Mines-IV Section,Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.

2. The Principal Secretary to Government, Industries & Commerce (M.lll)Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A. P. Secretariat, Guntur,Andhra Pradesh.Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A. P. Secretariat, Guntur,Andhra Pradesh.

3. The Director of Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh,Guntur.Guntur.

4. The Asst. Director of Mines & Geology, Vizianagaram[District][ at]Vizianagaram.Vizianagaram.

5. The Regional Controller of Mines Indian Bureau of Mines, IndianBureau of Mines, Room No. 603, 6^'^ Floor, CGO Towers, Kavadiguda,Secunderabad - 500 080.Bureau of Mines, Room No. 603, 6^'^ Floor, CGO Towers, Kavadiguda,Secunderabad - 500 080.

\

6. One CC to M/s. Pillix Law Firm, Advocate [OPUC]

GP for Mines and Geology, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

7. TwoCCsto[OUT][OUT]

8. One CC to Sri P. Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General[of][ India][ (OPUC)]

9. One CC to Sri AG. Arun Showri, Central Govt. Counsel[(OPUC)]

10. Three C.D. Copies.

Cnr

\

HIGH COURT

DATED:31/12/2024

COMMON ORDERWP.Nos.45047 and 42018 of 2016

X0 1 FEB 2®^Current Section ^

DISPOSING THE W.PsWITHOUT COSTS