At, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD
For the Petitioner: M/s. Kamalakar, Advocate. For the Respondents: G.P. for Industries & Commerce.
1. This is a Writ of Mandamus sought for a direction against the respondents to process the quarry lease application dt. 02.07.1997.2. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Respondents.3. The petitioner has applied for grant of quarry lease on 02.07.1997, for black granite over an extent of 9.00 hec in Sy.No. 125/2, 162 and 163 of R.L.Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. The application was pending for consideration with the Government. In the mean while the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No. 181, Industries & Commerce Department, dated 28.05.1998, fixing the time limits at different levels for disposal of the applications.4. As per the G.O.Ms.No.181, the Mandal Revenue Officer has to submit his report in respect of “No Objection Certificate’ within 30 days from the date of receipt of request from the Assistant Director. In the instant case, the No Objection Certificate was issued on 17.07.2004 i.e after a delay of nearly seven years.5. On an erroneous view of the matter “No Objection Certificate” was issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer was cancelled by the District Collector, vide proceedings dt. 24.09.2008, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 12(5)(d) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and thereby rejected the application of the petitioner. The rejection order is vide letter dt. 22.04.2005 of District Collector.6. Aggrieved by the rejection of quarry lease application, the petitioner preferred a Revision under Rule 35-A of the A.P Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966 before the Government. The Government allowed his revision by setting aside the proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology dt. 24.09.2008 and the petitioner was directed to obtain No Objection Certificate again from the Revenue Department immediately.7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner need not obtain again another No Objection Certificate from the Revenue Department, as the No Objection Certificate which was issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer dt. 22.04.2005 is still in force, as it was not cancelled by the District Collector.8. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per Rule 12(5)(d) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966, the application for granting quarry lease for granite and marble shall be disposed of by the Director in the order of their receipt. The petitioner had applied for quarry lease about 20 years back. The application of the petitioner had to be given priority as per the above rule. It is due to their delay in issuing the No Objection Certificate, the petitioner was not granted the quarry lease. There was no fault on behalf of the petitioner.9. On consideration of the submissions, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner applied for mining lease about 20 years back. The petitioner had waited till 2004 for getting No Objection Certificate. There is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, but he had not availed. The petitioner must be able to establish that there was an infringement of his right, for seeking a remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Whenever there is no statutory violation, no relief can be granted, under Article 226 of Constitution of India.10. The petitioner in this petition has sought for a direction to the respondents not to consider any other quarry lease application for grant of quarry lease over an extent of 9.00 hec. in Sy.No. 125/2, 162 and 163 of R.L.Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District, since the application of the petitioner is pending for consideration from 02.07.1997, for grant of quarry lease for black granite over the said area.11. Admittedly, this petitioner has applied for quarry lease in the year 1997 and many hurdles have come in the way. It is also obvious that the petitioner had not availed the alternative remedy available to him as per the Act.12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, this court is of the considered view that since the petitioner has submitted his representation dt 06.07.2020 and the same is pending, the Respondent No.5 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law w
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ithin eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents, he may resort to legal remedies available to him in accordance with law.13. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the consent of both the counsel at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs.Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand/ closed.