1 APHC010436672016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 40109/2016 Between: Baba Mineral Corporation, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y N VIVEKANANDA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 2. PELLETI RAJESH KUMAR (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 3. GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..declaring the impugned Order Memo No.2080/M.III(1)/2015 dated 26.10.2015 issued by the First Respondent illegal, malafide, unjust and opposed to all canons of natural justice as illegal, arbitrary and also violation of Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct 2 third respondent to issue Mineral Despatch permits to the Petitioner whenever she applies for the permits by paying the Royalties etc., to the Government and pass such other order or orders…..” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that, initially the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.1246 Industries and Commerce Department, dated 22.09.1964 granted a mining lease for the mineral of asbestos over an extent of 75.27 acres in S.No.441/A of Ippatla Village, Lingala Mandal of Kadapa District in favour of one Md.Rahamthulla for a period of 20 years from 06.09.1965 to 05.09.1985 and it was renewed for a further period of 20 years from 06.09.1985 to 05.09.2005. During subsistence of first renewal lease period, the original lessee filed an application to the Government for permission for transfer of mining lease for asbestos and the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.256, Industries and Commerce Department, dated 29.07.1993, accorded permission for transfer of the mining lease from Md.Rahamthulla, the sole proprietor to the petitioner herein. Accordingly, a transfer lease deed was executed on 18.12.1993 between the transferor and transferee. The petitioner has take over the lease and has been paying all taxes and royalties to the Government and selling the fiber of asbestos after obtaining mineral dispatch permits from the 3rd respondent. Further, the petitioner filed an application on 26.08.2004 to the Government through the 3rd respondent seeking grant of second renewal for 20 years from 06.09.2005 to 05.09.2025, but not orders have been passed on the said application by the Government. The petitioner had been operating the mine without any let or 3 hindrance from anybody including the Government, on the belief that the second renewal was deemed to have been granted. While so, the Government of India introduced a new Section 8A in the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short “M.M.D.R. Act”), according to which, the original mining lease granted in the year 1964 should be deemed to have been granted for a period of fifty years, i.e. the lease period needs to be reckoned from 06.09.1965 to 05.09.2015. In that point of view, it is deemed that the second renewal period of 20 years has to be added to the original lease period and its tenure is from 06.09.2015 to 05.09.1935, which is statutorily valid and legal. As a result of the effect of Section 8A of M.M.D.R. Act, the petitioner’s mining lease automatically stood extended up to 05.09.1935. Thereafter, the petitioner was advised that his second renewal application became unnecessary and unwarranted, as such, he did not pursue his second renewal application. Inspite of this important mandated event, the respondents are still laboring under a misconception that action was needed to be taken on his application dated 26.08.2004 for second renewal of his mining lease and in consequence thereof, the 1st respondent has issued a show-cause notice vide Memo No.2080/M.III(2)/2015, dated 07.04.2015 directing the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why his second renewal application should not be rejected on the ostensible reason that Government of India placed a ban on 4 leases for asbestos. Immediately, the petitioner submitted his explanation and his representative also met the 2nd respondent and requested to furnish a copy of order of the Government of India imposing a ban on renewal of mining leases for asbestos, but it was not available and the report of the Director of Mines and Geology was not supplied to the petitioner and no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner. Subsequently, the 1st respondent vide impugned Memo No.2080/M.III(1)/2015, dated 26.10.2015, passed orders rejecting the second renewal mining lease application of the petitioner on the ground that mining of asbestos would cause pollution and occupational health hazards. The impugned order is passed without issuing any opportunity to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry. Hence the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard Mr.Y.N.Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.Pelleti Rajesh Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the 4th respondent. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions which are urged in the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent filed counter. While denying the contents of the writ petition, he stated that, there is no improper decision in rejection of petitioner’s 2nd renewal application by the 1st respondent and 5 further keeping in view the predominant objective of maintaining public health and as there is every chance of occurrence of Solicosis and Pneumoconiosis diseases, in case of operating asbestos mines, hence the Government of India has taken a decision for imposing ban on all the asbestos and associated minerals mining henceforth keeping in view of the safety of workers and in view of requirement of public health, who are working in the mines. Hence sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Admittedly, this Court vide order dated 28.11.2016 in W.P.M.P.No.49405 of 2016 has dismissed the application seeking for suspension of impugned Memo No.2080/M.III(1)/2015, dated 26.10.2015 on the ground that mining of asbestos would cause pollution and serious allegations appears to have been made with regard to granting of permission for mining operations. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court observed that, as the Government of India has taken decision for imposing ban on all the asbestos and associated minerals mining keeping in view the safety of workers, this Court found no merit in the instant petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 6 9. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stands closed. _________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date: 20.01.2025 ARR 7 HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO Writ Petition No.40109 of 2016 Date: 20.01.2025 ARR