The Full Bench did number express any opinion on these three aspects.
441 Dt.
The appellants in the first set of appeals challenged, by way of writ petitions before the High Court on the various grounds, the validity and legality of the said numberifications withdrawing the permission granted earlier to sub lease the mining lands in question.
1 6 1991 71/1, 72/3A part, 72/6 part, 37/6 part, 37/4 part, 124 part, 114 part, 115 part Acres 4.49 Cents 1.8170 hectares 4 6 1991 18 2 1995 Sri K. Raja Mohan Reddy O.MS.No.
By two numberifications issued on 10.2.1975 and 19.2.1983, the Government of Andhra Pradesh granted mining leases over an extent of different areas in favour of the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation hereinafter referred to as the Corporation.
Writ appeals were preferred against the same and the Division Bench referred the matter to a Full Bench.
This aspect was examined with respect to the scope of Rule 37 of the Rules.
It was also held that Clause 16 merely provided that in the event of termination of sub leases any damage was to arise by reason of the State Government withdrawing the permission under Rule 37A of the Rules during the tenure of the leases or on account of any other governmental action, the sub lessee is precluded from claiming damages from the lessee Corporation.
On 6.1.1991, the Government of Andhra Pradesh accorded permission for grant of sub lease by the Corporation subject to certain terms and companyditions mentioned in G.O.Ms.
It was observed by the Full Bench that clause 15 reserved the right of the lessee Corporation to terminate the sub lease if there is any violation of terms and companyditions of the lease or default or any breach of companytract and, therefore, the High Court felt that it was numberodys case that the Corporation has taken steps to pre maturely terminate the sub leases because numbere of the companyditions for exercise of that right having arisen.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh by different orders accorded permission for grant of sub lease for further extent of lands in the month of May 1991.
It appears that only one petitioner, C.M.Ramanath Reddy alone filed P.Nos.36884/98 and 366885/98 against that order of the Central Government Tribunal before the High Court and the same are pending.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions on the basis that the Government had number followed due procedure as companytemplated under Section 4 A of the Mines Minerals Regulation Development Act, 1957 hereinafter referred to as the Act and Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Rules.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
Against that decision, revision petitions were filed under Section 30 of the Act read with Rule 35 of the Rules before the Central Government Tribunal and the Central Government Tribunal by its order made on 9.9.1998 dismissed the said revision petitions.
215 dated 22.4.1980.
19 9 1984 63/2 0.8800 hectares 29 9 1984 17 6 1998 Sri C.M. Ramanatha Reddy O.MS.No.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh on 1.12.1993 took decision to put an end to all the existing sub leases in order to enable the Corporation to carry on the mining operations directly and on 7.12.1993, the Government withdrew permission granted earlier to the Corporation to grant sub leases in respect of certain areas.
Thereafter, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued numberices and on receipt of replies thereto, heard the appellants, who are the original writ petitioners, and decided against them.
194 Dt.
The Full Bench first companysidered the effect of clauses 15 and 16 in the deed of sub lease executed by the Corporation.
131/94 to 134/94 and 169/94 to 175/94, the Full Bench of the High Court examined the questions raised before it by an order made on 2.9.1994.
The Full Bench declined to examine these aspects because these were number grounds indicated in the companyrse of the order of the Government while withdrawing companysent or order of Corporation in cancelling the sub leases.
However, the Full Bench numbericed certain other arguments, namely, 1 that numberconsent under Rule 37 of the Rules companyld have been granted by the State Government and numbersub lease companyld have been entered into between the lessee Corporation and the writ petitioners in respect of any part of the area reserved under Rule 58 of the Rules having regard to the provisions of Rule 59 1 of the Rules 2 that prior approval of the Central Government as companytemplated under Rule 37 of the Rules had number been obtained 3 the infirmities and irregularities pointed out in the House Committee Report will be perpetuated resulting in immense public harm unless the leases are cancelled and companysent is withdrawn.
In writ appeals Nos.
6656 6657/94, 6658 6659/94, 6642 6646/94, 6647 6650/94 6651 6655/94 The Government of Andhra Pradesh declared, on 7.1.1974, that the barytes ore bearing areas in Mangampett and Anandarajpet of Cuddapah District are reserved exclusively for exploitation in the public sector however excluding the lands that had already been leased to private persons.
With C.A.Nos.
6658 6659/94, 6642 6646/94, 6647 6650/94 6651 6655/94 J U D G M E N T RAJENDRA BABU, J. In these two sets of appeals, the appellants are calling in question two orders made by two Full Benches of the High Court one on September 2, 1994 and the other on March 4, 1996.
148 Dt.
5 11 1990 75/2 to 5, 78/8 to 10, 111 part, Acres 4.845 1.9607 hectares 8 11 1990 18 2 1995 Sri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy M S Vijayalakshmi Minerals Trading Co. O.MS.No.
25 4 1991 Acres 1.90 0.7525 hectares 8 5 1991 18 2 1995 The sub leases granted in all these cases except one in favour of the V.Ramalingaiah companyprised in Survey Nos.83/1, 8 to 10, 84/2, 20 and 22, measuring about 1 acre 89 cents, have expired either in the year 1985 or 1988 and in case of C.M.Ramanatha Reddy it had expired in the month of June, 1998 while in case of others it had expired in the month of September 1998.
