The Division Bench further held that the decision to cancel O.No.1290 was valid that the reservation of an area admeasuring Acs.61.50 was in public interest and that there were numbermala fides in cancelling G.O.No.1290 as alleged by the appellants.
The above G.O.No.72 dated 14.2.97 became the subject matter of the second round of litigation which has given rise to these civil appeals.
These writ petitions were filed in October 1997.
Along with the said letter dated 18.2.97 an inspection report was enclosed.
In the said letter, the Dy.
By judgment and order dated 27.6.97, the Division Bench disposed of the above mentioned Writ Appeal No.672 of 1997 stating that there was numberinfirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.10.96 that, there was violation of the rules of natural justice inasmuch as the decision to cancel G.O.No.1290 was taken without hearing and without giving reasons and was therefore void and accordingly the writ appeal was dismissed.
The Court further held that the State Government did number disclose to the Central Government the fact that the appellants were holding leases which were the subject matter of the pending writ petitions in the High Court and companysequently the State Government had violated the above two companyditions imposed by the Central Government in its approval dated 29.10.99.
Being aggrieved by the judgment, the State Government preferred Writ Appeal No.672 of 1997.
This was the primary purpose of the said O. Conferment of rights on the appellants was number the main purpose of the said G.O. In fact, as stated above, the said G.O.No.1290 was issued on 27.8.91 and within one month it was withdrawn on 18.10.91.
Under the said 1973 Act these lands were meant for the benefit of the weaker sections.
These O.Nos.267 and 268 were challenged by filing writ petitions mainly on the ground that they were invalid as prior approval of the Central Government was number obtained.
Pending the said writ petition, the State Government issued G.O.Nos.267 and 268 on 27/29.9.97 under Rule 9 A 1 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 for short, the 1966 Rules .
60 be leased out to the four appellants, namely, M s. Rita Industrial Corporation Ltd., M s. Upendra Granites, M s. Acropolis Granites Ltd. and M s. Pallava Granite Industries Ltd. and that each of the appellant was to be given Ac.15 for mining purposes.
4705 /2006 SLP C No.20281 of 2004, A. No.
These letters were addressed by the State Government.
15 each be leased out to the above four firms on the terms and companyditions in O.No.876 dated 3.6.89 subject to the modification that the lease shall be for 10 years and the lessees shall pay Rs.600/ per acre, per annum for the first five years and Rs.900/ per acre, per annum for the remaining five years.
Under the said G.O.No.1290, the State Government stated that Acs.
Similarly, by letter dated 18.2.97 addressed by Deputy Director of Mines and Geology to Director of Mines and Geology, a request was made to companysider the mining lease application filed by M s. Rita Industrial Corporation Ltd. in terms of the judgment of the learned single judge dated 18.10.96.
Ultimately, the Central Government vide letter dated 29.10.99 gave its approval for reservation of Acs.61.50 of granite bearing area in Survey number55/5 out of the total area of Acs.86.50 subject to two companyditions, namely, that the reservation shall number be applicable to areas held under mining or quarry lease and secondly, that the approval granted shall be subject to the outcome of pending companyrt cases.
The said G.O.No.1290 was challenged in a PIL.
Pending the said writ appeal, the Collector, District Prakasam, wrote to the Director of Mines and Geology stating that in view of the judgment dated 18.10.96 he had numberobjection to the grant of mining lease to the extent of Acs.15 in terms of G.O.No.1290.
Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the State Government went in writ appeal to the Division Bench.
Accordingly, a show cause numberice was issued by the State Government on 21.2.98 to the appellants.
The said G.O. further stated that it was issued without prejudice to O.Nos.267 and 268 dated 27/29.9.97.
Arising out of S. L.P. C No.15690 15695 of 2004 WITH A. Nos 4703 /2006 SLP C Nos.16109 16113/2004, A. Nos.
By the said judgment the Director of Mines and Geology was also asked to dispose of the application made by M s. Rita Industrial Corporation Ltd. for mining lease in accordance with law.
In the said G.O.No.72 there is a reference to the approval granted by the Government of India.
The State has obtained the prior approval of the Central Government.
These G.O.Nos.267 and 268, however, were issued without prior approval of the Central Government under Section 17A 2 of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957 for short, the 1957 Act .
In this batch of civil appeals by grant of special leave to appeal two questions arise for determination, namely, whether the G.O.No.1290 dated 27.8.91 companystitutes a decision to grant or whether it companystitutes a grant of mining lease per se and secondly whether the decision to revoke the said G.O. was actuated by mala fides in order to deprive the appellants of their mining rights.
of 2006 S.L.P. Nos.20225 28 of 2005, they are as follows An area admeasuring Acs.
4707 /2006 SLP C No.9670 of 2005, A. Nos.
4708 /2006 SLP C Nos.20230 20232/2005, A. Nos.
These lands were surrendered by the land holders under the said 1973 Act to the State Government.
By G.O.No.1290 dated 27.8.91, the State Government accepted the above proposals and decided to appropriate by leasing out the lands for mining under Section 14 6 of the 1973 Act that out of the total area of the surrendered lands admeasuring Acs.
However, later on in the last letter dated 23.12.98 the State Government proposed reservation for a larger area companyering the entire granite bearing area to be exploited by the APMDC.
By impugned judgment dated 24.3.2004, the Division Bench after reciting the above facts and after taking into account the arguments advanced before it held that it was totally unnecessary to examine the validity of G.O.Nos.267 and 268 respectively since vide subsequent decision dated 29.10.99 the Central Government had granted approval for reserving an area admeasuring Acs.61.50 as granite bearing area.
By judgment and order dated 28.3.2002, the learned Single Judge set aside G.O.Nos.267 and 268 on the ground that prior approval of the Central Government was number obtained.
Under the said G.Os.
Since the Central Government had granted approval the subsequent G.O.No.72 dated 14.2.2002 cannot be faulted.
Collector had given N.O.C. for the grant of quarry lease and, therefore, the application made by M s. Rita Industrial Corporation Ltd. for grant of quarry lease may be disposed at the earliest.
Director has stated that since the Collector, District Prakasam, had allotted the land lease to M s. Rita Industrial Corporation Ltd. there companyld be numberobjection to grant quarry lease over an extent of Acs.15 in Survey number55/5.
This inspection report was prepared by Dy.
4704 /2006 SLP C Nos.18842 18844/2004, A. No.
When the numberice of the PIL was received by the State Government, G.O.No.1361 dated 11.9.91 came to be issued by which the earlier G.O.No.1290, stood cancelled.
4706 /2006 SLP C Nos.21905 21908/2004, A. Nos.
This is done through O.No.1290.
That show cause numberice was challenged vide Writ Petition No.6098 of 1998.
By the aforestated judgment the Division Bench took the view that G.O.No.72 dated 14.2.2002 was issued after obtaining prior approval from the Central Government and, therefore, the said G.O. did number suffer from any legal or companystitutional infirmities.
By judgment and order dated 18.10.96, the learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the cancellation of G.O.No.1290 was ab initio void for want of hearing and reasons in support of the cancellation.
the State Government, after examination of the report of the Director of Mines and Geology, ordered that an area admeasuring Acs.61.50 in Survey number55/5 shall be reserved for exploitation by Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited which is a State owned Corporation for short, APMDC , in public interest.
Accordingly, the show cause numberice dated 21.2.98 was also set aside.
By the said G.O.No.72 an area admeasuring Acs.61.50 was declared as granite bearing area.
However, in order to earn larger revenues the Government accepted the proposal to exploit the above mentioned granite.
The initial proposal of the State Government was to reserve an area admeasuring Acs.61.50 only in Survey number55/5 for exploitation by APMDC.
4709 /2006 SLP C Nos.20225 20228/2005, and Contempt Petition c No.157/2006 in SLP c No.20225 20228/2005 KAPADIA, J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.
Later on, it was realised that these lands had galaxy granites and, therefore, proposals were made by the Collector, District Prakasam, the Commissioner of Land Reforms and the Director of Mines and Geology to lease out the said area for mining purposes.
86.50, an area admeasuring Acs.
This cancellation was challenged by M s. Rita Industrial Corporation Ltd. vide Writ Petition No.12386 of 1991 in the High Court.
For the sake of clarity we reproduce herein the facts in the case companycerning M s. Rita Industrial Corporation Ltd. Appellant in C.A. Nos.
86.50 in Survey number55/5 of Village Rajupalem Lakshmipuram, Cheemakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh, being agricultural lands vested as surplus lands under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 for short, the 1973 Act in the State Government.
As stated above, when the said G.O. was issued on 27.8.91 a public interest litigation, Writ Petition No.2356 of 1991, was filed in the High Court.
By the said G.O. the Collector, District Prakasam, was requested to take further action by making proper allotment of land keeping in view the principle of companytiguity.
Aggrieved by impugned judgment dated 24.3.2004 allowing the writ appeals filed by the State Government, the appellants have companye to this Court by way of special leave to appeal.
A survey report was also annexed with the letter dated 18.2.97 in which it was recited that the Dist.
In the said inspection report it was stated that in terms of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.10.96 the Collector had handed over the lands to M s. Rita Industrial Corporation Ltd. that the Collector had agreed to grant the land lease and, therefore, till the judgment dated 18.10.96 remains in force, M s. Rita Industrial Corporation Ltd. had a right to obtain a mining lease.
Director of Mines and Geology.
In terms of the said approval the State Government on 14.2.2002 issued G.O.No.72 later on published in the Official Gazette of A.P. as Notification No.88 dated 26.2.97 .
On 24.10.97 pending the writ petitions the State Government sought approval of the Central Government stating that APMDC is a State owned companypany, set up to acquire mining rights from the Government that the Corporation is a profit making organisation that the Corporation is equipped with expertise and machinery to undertake mining in a scientific manner that the State Government had identified Acs.61.50 in Survey number55/5 for exploitation of galaxy granite and accordingly the Central Government was asked to grant its approval under Section 17A 2 of the 1957 Act.
Therefore, they were kept under POB.
By the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, the District Collector was directed to execute the surface lease in favour of M s. Rita Industrial Corporation Ltd. in terms of G.O.No.1290.
Director requested the Director of Mines and Geology to take a decision on the quarry application of M s. Rita Industrial Corporation Ltd. at the earliest.
By letter dated 23.7.99, the Central Government enquired from the State Government whether there existed any order of injunction from the companypetent companyrt in the pending writ petitions.
The State has decided to earn more revenue by inviting global tenders.
In the second round of litigation appellants sought the declaration that G.O.Nos.267 and 268 were illegal and void that the show cause numberice dated 21.2.98 issued by the State Government should be quashed that the grant of approval dated 29.10.99 by the Central Government was illegal, void and unenforceable and lastly that the cancellation and revocation of mining lease applications, was arbitrary and bad in law.
However, it was made clear by the Division Bench that its judgment and order dated 27.6.97 will number prevent the Government from taking steps to cancel O.1290, if such right exists in the Government, in accordance with law.
By the said decision the State Government was directed to companysider the mining lease applications afresh and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
In the approval granted by the Central Government dated 29.10.99 the subject matter referred to four companymunications, namely, letter dated 24.10.97, letter dated 13.2.98, letter dated 5.11.98 and letter dated 23.12.98.
Accordingly, the Dy.
