APHC010591642023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 30533/2023 Between: 1. LAKSHMI GRANITES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR S. RAGHAVA RAO, S/O.VENKATESWARLU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 37-1-174/15, 3RD FLOOR, SARAVANA COMPLEX ADDANKI BUS STAND, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-523001 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE (MINES.II) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, SRI ANJANEYA TOWERS, D.NO.7-104, B BOCK, 5TH FLOOR, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 3. THE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRCT ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE ASST DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, OPP. PRAKASAMBHAVAN, TRUNK ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. M/S SURASKHA GRANITES, REP. BY MANAGING PARTNER SRI.KILARU SURESH BABU REGD.OFFICE AT NO.9-157, PENAMALURU, KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 521139 2 ...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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Memo No.MGODMGE/206/2023/M-III, dated 10.11.2023 of the 1st Respondent and the Consequential Proceedings of the DMandG vide Memo No.4149/D9/2023, dated 16.11.2023, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and principles of natural justice and Fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India and further direct the Government to accord permission to the DMandG to include an additional area over an extent of Ac.0.28 cents / 0.291 Ha. to the Petitioner's existing quarry lease an extent of 1.327 and 0.461 hectares (both leases single bit) in Sy.No.103 of Konidina Village, Ballikurava Mandal, Bapatla District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the Memo No.MGODMGE/206/2023/M-III, dated 10.11.2023, of the 1St Respondent and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to permit the Petitioner herein/Prop. Respondent No.6 to come on record as 6th respondent in W.P.No.30533 of 2023 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P KAMLAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY 2. P DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- Heard Sri P.Kamlakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Sudeepthi Potluri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner is an existing quarry lease holder over an extent of 1.327 and 0.461 hectares in Sy.No.103 of USH of Konidina Village, Ballikurava Mandal, Bapatla District for a period of 20 years with effect from 17.04.2023 to 16.04.2043. The petitioner having came to know of an extent of Ac.1.20 cents of an un-allotted area located at higher elevation to his existing quarry lease area made an application for grant of quarry lease. The petitioner made an application to the 1st respondent. Based on the said application, the 1st respondent forwarded the same to the 3rd respondent - DMGO, Bapatla and called for report vide proceedings dated 11.08.2023. The 3rd respondent- DMGO, Bapatla herein submitted his report dated 29.09.2023. While submitting the said report, he prepared a map showing the existing lease abutting to the un-allotted area of Ac.1.20 cents. He further stated that available area for allotment was only Ac.0.72 cents. The 5th respondent has also filed same application for grant for allotment of the land. Similarly, the 2nd respondent called for the report from the 3rd respondent. 4 3. It is contended that the 5th respondent is transferee of the lease held by one M/s. Raghavendra Granites for the unexpired portion of the lease. The 5th respondent is a transferee of the said quarry with a condition that they have to establish mineral based industry within two (2) years from the date of execution of lease deed dated 22.06.2021. If the same is not established within two years, the lease would be cancelled as per the Rule 12 (h) (viii) (a) of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short The APMMC Rules, 1966). The 5th respondent made a representation to the 2nd respondent that on account of the Covid-19, they were unable to establish the industry within two (2) years and sought for extension of time for establishment of the industry. It is contended that the respondents would accord permission in favour of the 5th respondent to allot the additional area of Ac.0.72 cents, which is a subject matter of the present writ petition, the petitioner herein filed writ petition in W.P.No.29432 of 2023. While the said writ petition was pending, the proceedings were issued in favour of the 5th respondent allotting the total extent of Ac.0.72 cents in Sy.No.103 USH, Konidena Village, Ballikurava Mandal, Bapatla District with an ante date and in consequence of the same, proceedings dated 16.11.2023 were also issued by the 2nd respondent directing the 3rd respondent to grant quarry lease in favour of the 5th respondent. Challenging the same, the instant writ petition is filed. 4. It is contended that the impugned proceedings are in violation of the provisions of APMMC Rules, 1966. Having regard to the fact that the no reasons have been assigned while issuing the proceedings for extension of 5 the time period for establishment of the industry. It is contended that as per the provisions of Rule 12 (5) (h) (viii) (a) of APMMC Rules, 1966, the industrial entity, which is mineral based industry is not established within two years after the execution of the lease deed, no further extension should be granted and the lease shall stand cancelled. In the light of the said provisions, the proceedings of the respondents, extending the lease in favour of the 5th respondent and allotting the subject extent of Ac.0.72 cents in its favour is contrary to the provisions of the Rule 12 (5) (h) (viii) (a) of APMMC Rules, 1966 and thus seeks for set aside of the same. 5. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court is of the view that a perusal of the impugned proceedings reflect that an additional extent of Ac.0.72 cents was granted in favour of the 5th respondent, while treating it as a special case by relaxing the Rule 12 (5) (a) (i) of APMMC Rules, 1966, for extension of time. The order impugned does not containing any reasons for considering it as a special case and for invoking the clauses relating to relax the conditions of mining lease. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for consideration afresh, along with the applications filed by the petitioner and the 5th respondent, in accordance with law, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 7. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 27.10.2025 ANI 7 366 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.30533 of 2023 Date: 27.10.2025 ANI