APHC010255892026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Q i T U% * FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NOS: 13016 AND 14621 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO: 13016 OF 2025 Between: M Shobhana Rani, W/o Ravindranath Reddy, Aged 67 years, R/o 25-2- 465, JK Colony, Andhra Kesari Nagar, SPSR Nellore District - 524004. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Mines Geology Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District The Commissioner District of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District The District Mines and Geology Officer, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 2. 3. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or a direction or a writ, more one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, holding that inaction of the District Mines Geology Officer, Nellore (3RD Respondent) in not complying with Memo No. INC04- 13027(34)/l/202 5- D-8 of the Commissioner Director of Mines Geology (2ND Respondent) as arbitrary, unjust, and unconstitutional and to consequently direct the District Mines 8i Geology Officer, Nellore to issue dispatch permits to the Petitioner for 31,250MT of Quartz and 93,750MT of Feldspar totalling 1,25,000MT. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T SREEDHAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY WRIT PETITION NO: 14621 OF 2025 Between: G Bharath, S/o Rarnesh Babu, Aged 53 years, R/o. KMC Campus, Goginenipuram, Gudur Mandal, Tirupathi District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District 2. The Commissioner and District of Mines and Geology Government of Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District 3. The District Mines and Geology Officer, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or a direction or a writ, more one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, holding that inaction of the District Mines and Geology Officer, Nellore (3 Respondent) in not complying with Memo No. INC04- 13027(34)/2/202 5- D-8 dt 26/02/2025 of the Commissioner and Director of Mines and Geology (2 Respondent) as arbitrary, unjust, and unconstitutional and to consequently direct the District Mines and Geology Officer, Nellore issue dispatch permits to the Petitioner for 7,750MT of Quartz and 16,275MT of Feldspar totalling 24,025MT. T-:-- . t. If'-/- ylf t Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T SREEDHAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP made the following Common order: FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court I ■ - - •% r € APHC010255892025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 13016/2025 Between: 1.M SHOBHANA RANI, W/0 RAVINDRANATH REDDY, AGED 67 YEARS, R/0 25-2-465, JK COLONY, ANDHRA KESARI NAGAR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT - 524004. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE Oh AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINES GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2.THE COMMISSIONER DISTRICT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT 3.THE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an order or a direction or a writ, more one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, holding that inaction of the District Mines Geology Officer, Nellore (3RD Respondent) in not complying with Memo No. INC04-13027(34)/l/202 5- D-8 of the Commissioner Geology (2ND Respondent) as arbitrary, unjust, and unconstitutional and to consequently direct the District Mines 8i Geology Officer, Nellore to issue dispatch permits to the Petitioner for 31,250MT of Quartz and 93,750MT of Feldspar totalling 1,25,000MT and pass s Counsel for the Petitioner: Director of Mines 2 1.TSREEDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY APHC010261062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY the twenty SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 14621/2025 [3458] B THE Between: 1 n BHARATH S/0 RAMESH BABU GOGINENIPURAM, GUDUR MANDAL AGED 53 YEARS, R/0. KMC TlRUPATHl CAMPUS, DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCI^PAL SECRETARY, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 0 THF COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY government of ANDHRA PRADESH, IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT 3.THE DISTRICT MINES NELLORE DISTRICT. 1.THE and geology officer, NELLORE, SPSR ...RESPONDENT(S): Geology Officer, Nellore (3 Respondent) in not complying with Memo No. and I 3 r INC04-13027(34)/2/202 5- D-8 dt 26/02/2025 of the Commissioner and Director of Mines and Geology (2 Respondent) as arbitrary, unjust, and unconstitutional and to consequently direct the District Mines and Geology Officer, Nellore issue dispatch permits to the Petitioner for 7,750MT of Quartz and 16,275MT of Feldspar totalling 24,025MT and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.TSREEDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:- Heard Sri T.Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology. Since the issue involved in both the cases is one and the same, I 2. deem it appropriate to decide both these cases by way of common order, by taking W.P.No.13016 of 2025 as lead petition. The writ petitioner assails the action of the 3^^^ respondent in not passing the orders pursuant to the proceedings of the 2"'^ respondent as arbitrary and sought a consequential direction to the respondents to issue 3. dispatch permits for 31,250 MT of Quartz and 93,750 MT of Feldspar. It is contended that initially mining lease for Mica, Quartz, and Feldspar was granted in favour of one Sri D.Narapa Reddy over an extent of 49.24 acres in Sy.Nos.551, 553 and 554 of Thurupupoondia Village and in Sy.Nos.815 to 825 of Molakalapoondia Village of Sydapuram Mandal of SPSR Nellore District, for a period of 20 years vide G.O.Ms.No.1019, Industries & Commerce (B-ll) Department, dated 18.11.1971. The said lease was in force 4. 4 from 19.09.1972 to 18.09.1992. After the death of the said D.Narapa Reddy, After her death his wife was recognized as his successor-lessee. Smt. N.Usha Kiran was declared as her successor-lessee, later the petitioner was recognized as successor lessee vide proceedings dated 01.06.2002. It is contended that the Government vide proceedings dated 17.04.2006 granted renewal of mining lease for a period of 20 years After its expiry in 2012, the petitioner has applied for renewal of lease in terms of G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 06.04.2023 after payment of premium amount at 10 times of the dead rent. 5. with effect from 19.09.1992 to 19.08.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner has applied to the 2"^ respondent seeking issuance dispatch permits for Quartz and Feldspar recovered from runoff mine, excavated previously in an extent of 1,25,000 MT. 2^^ respondent vide his proceedings dated 26.02.2025 directed the S'"'* respondent to take appropriate action in terms of the Rule 12(1)(gg) of the Minerals (other than Atomic & Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession 6. The Rules, 2016 (for short Rules, 2016). The petitioner thus is aggrieved by the action of the 3"'^ respondent in not passing appropriate orders on the recommendations of the 2"^* respondent. 7. The 2"'^ respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the lease was extended vide proceedings dated 05.01.2009 for the period 19.09.1992 to 18.09.2012 and further stated that after the expiry of the lease on 18.09.2012. 8. 5 Thereafter, the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 were amended vide G.O.Ms,No.25 dated 06.04.2023 and G.O.Ms.No.73 dated 18.08.2023 amending Rule 12 of the Rules, 2016, inserted Rule 12 5(h)(xi)(i) of the Rules, 2016. As per the said amended provisions, the leases which have expired on or before 31.03.2023, the said lease holders were entitled to submit renewal applications for leases on or before 31.08.2023 along with the premium amount. In terms of the said provisions, the petitioner did not apply for renewal of lease. However, filed the same on 06.06.2024. Since the said renewal application was not within the time granted, the proposals were submitted by the respondent for rejection of the mining lease, consequently the respondent vide proceedings dated 21.02.2025 rejected the case of the petitioner for renewal of the lease. It is further contended that the petitioner is not entitled for dispatch permits in terms of Rule 12(1)(gg) of the Rules, 2016, as per which the lessee can seek permission to remove the minerals within six calendar months from the date of expiry of the lease, after the lapse of the said period no such permission would be granted for issuance of dispatch permits. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the 2"^^ respondent vide proceedings dated 26.02.2025 has directed the 3'^'^ respondent to pass appropriate orders in terms of the Rule 12(1)(gg) of the Rules, 2016. He further argues that initially the 3^^ respondent himself has recommended for issuance of dispatch permits. Having been directed by a Superior Officer and he himself having recommended for issuance of dispatch 10. 6 permits, cannot turn around and sit over the file citing that the petitioner is not entitled for issuance of dispatch permits, it is further contended that when the petitioner has applied for dispatch permits the mineral was minor mineral therefore, the Rules, 2016 would not apply. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri T.Sreedhar referring to the provisions of Section 11(2)(d) of the Rules, argues that under the guise of the amended law which came into force after the petitioner had applied for dispatch permits, the respondents cannot deny his right. The learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology argues 12. that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the writ petition. He further argues that the petitioner has misrepresented the facts and has not placed the facts straight before the Court. After the expiry of lease in 2012, no renewal was issued extending the lease after 18.09.2012. He relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.D.Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others\ wherein it is observed that; “34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief If there Is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. 1 (2008) 12 see 481 7 35. 36.A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary pov/er a Writ Court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the Court, the Court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating "We will not listen to your application because of what you have done". The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. ’’ The learned Government Pleader further argues that the petitioner has stated that the renewal application is pending, but, the same was rejected. The learned counsel thus argues that the petitioner is not entitled for the dispatch permits since there was no valid lease executed in 13. his/her favour after 2012. Between 19.09.1992 to 18.09.2012 the mineral was major mineral and no lease was renewed after 18.09.2012. Therefore, in the light of the provisions of Rule 12(gg) of Rules, 2016, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed in the writ petition. 14. Considered the submissions. 15. From the record, it appears that the lease was not renewed after its expiry in 2012. Only in 2023, the petitioner applied for renewal under the amended rule. Rule 12 5(h)(xi)(i). The same was rejected on 22.01.2025. The petitioner, vide his/her application dated 20.01.2025, applied to the 3^^^ respondent for the issuance of dispatch permits for Quartz and Feldspar minerals recovered from the run-of-mine material that had been previously excavated. The 3’''^ respondent, vide proceedings dated 03.02.2025 (alleged to 8 have been received by the 2'^'^ respondent on 24.02.2025), reported that the ^ quantity of mineral available at the mine, as per their inspection report, was quantified at 1,25,000 MT and recommended for issuance of dispatch permits. However, in view of the Notification of the Government of India omitting the subject mineral from the list of minor mineral, the 2"^' respondent informed the 3rd respondent that the subject mineral would be regulated by the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the applicable Rules, thus the 2"'^ respondent directed the respondent to take appropriate action in the light of the amendments. The petitioner did not choose to challenge the proceedings of the 2'^^ respondent dated 26.02.2025. The petitioner does not appear to have any grievance against the same. The effect of the said proceedings would be that the 3'"'^ respondent is now required to examine the issue afresh, in the light of the Notification of the Government of India dated 20.02.2025, categorizing the mineral as a major mineral, and pass orders afresh in compliance with Rule 12(1)(gg) of the Rules in terms of the directions of the 2"^* respondent. It is relevant to extract here the Rule 12 (1) (gg) of the Rules, 2016; 16. Terms and conditions of a mining lease:- (1) Every mining lease shall be subject to the following conditions: 12. (gg) the lessee may, after paying the rents, rates and royalties payable under the Act and rules made thereunder or under the lease deed, at the expiry or sooner termination of the lease term 9 months thereafter (unless the lease is within six calendar terminated for default of the lessee, and in that case at any time than six calendar or not less than three calendar months nor termination) take down and remove for its own mineral excavated during the currency of the more months after such benefit, all or any ore lease engines, maehinery. plant, buildings, structures, tramways, railways and other works, erections and conveniences whtch may have been erected, set up or placed by the lessee m or upon the leased lands and which the lessee is not bound to deliver to the which the State Government does not desire State Government or to purchase; Therefore, the 3- resporrdent is not bound by its eariier recommendation recommended the 2"'« respondent to issue dispatch recommendation of the 3'" respondent, the to the 3^^ respondent for passing amendments categorizing the subject dated 03.02.2025, which permits. Without acting on the 2"'^ respondent remanded the matter appropriate orders in the light of the mineral (s) as major mineral. Therefore, the 3'- respondent is at iiberty to directed by the 2"“ respondent, duly in terms of Rule 12(1)(gg) pass orders as of the Rules, 2016, afresh. disposed of. of the foregoing, the writ petitions are appropriate orders as directed by the 17. In view directing the 3^^ respondent to pass 2^^ respondent vide proceedings reliance on his earlier report and shall be no order as to costs. dated 26.02.2025, without placing any recommendation dated 03.02.2025. There 1 10 As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO deputy registrar SECTIO^^OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Mines Geology Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District 2. The Commissioner District of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District 3. The District Mines and Geology Officer, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 4. One CC to Sri. T Sreedhar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP For Mines And Geology, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies. AL if V HIGH COURT DATED:22/08/2025 COMMON ORDER WP NO. 13016 AND 14621 OF 2025 i 0 2 SEP 2025 I ^ ^ Cgrram Mciion ^ DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS