Kishore Granites Pvt.Ltd. vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO WRIT PETITION Nos. 4894, 4993, 5000, 5006, 5007, 5018, 5019, 5049, 5068, 5073, 5074, 5099, 5100, 5123, 5125, 5144, 5153, 5156, 5157, 5169, 5030, 5303, 5330, 5383, 5388, 5409, 5411, 5412 & 5416 of 2020

COMMON ORDER:

In all the batch of the writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the respective show-cause notices issued by the 3 rd respondent, who is the Additional Director of Mines and Geology, Andhra Pradesh. The show-cause notices were challenged on various grounds, however, what is germane at this juncture for deciding these writ petitions is the power and authority of the Additional Director of Mines and Geology i.e., 3rd respondent to issue notices.

2. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel, Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy, Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana and Sri P.S.Narasimha, that the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short, 'APMMC Rules, 1966') referred the authority i.e., Director alone and not any other authority, particularly, the Additional Director.

3. (a) It is brought to the notice of this Court that Rule 4(c) of APMMC Rules, 1966, defined the term "Director" as follows:

"(c) 'Director' means the Director of Mines and Geology, Andhra Pradesh."

(b) It is strenuously argued by learned Senior Counsel that as per Rule 12(5)(a)(i) of APMMC Rules, 1966, a prospecting license or a quarry lease for Granite useful for cutting and polishing, Marble and the 31 minerals mentioned at Sl.No.18 to 48 in schedule I of rule 10

shall be granted by the "Director" on an application made to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology concerned. Similarly, in Rule 12(5)(h)(xii), it is mentioned that in case of any breach on the part of licensee or lessee of any covenant or conditions contained in the grant, the "Director" may after giving an opportunity to the defaulter, determine the license or lease and take possession of the premises under licence or lease and forfeit the security deposit.

4. Learned Senior Counsel would thus argue that in all the relevant places of the Rule 12 and also in definition, only one authority i.e., Director is mentioned but none other is stipulated. In that view, they vehemently argued, the impugned show-cause notices directing the petitioners to submit explanation as to why action should not be taken against them in respect of alleged deviations could not have been given by Additional Director of Mines and Geology, as he has no power or authority to do so. As stated supra, the other contentions raised by the respective senior counsel are not mentioned here.

5. Refuting their above arguments, learned Government Pleader would argue that Additional Director is also part of the Administration of Department of Mines and Geology and therefore, he is authorized to issue show-cause notices etc., and there is no legal flaw in it. He would further submit that in fact the Department of Mines and Geology issued memo authorizing Sri K.C.L.Narasimha Reddy, Additional Director, to issue notices. He produced a copy of Memo

2

No.24438/E1/2017, dated 03.01.2020 to buttress his contention, which reads thus:

" GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, IBRAHIMPATNAM Memo No.24438/E1/2017 dt.03.01.2020

Sub: Mines & Minerals – Matters of urgent nature and immediate decision warranted – Authorisation to the Additional Director of Mines & Geology – Reg.

* * *

Sri K.C.L.Narasimha Reddy, Additional Director, O/o. Director of Mines and Geology is authorized to issue notices etc., and to

take decision on matters of urgent nature and immediate decision warranted under relevant Rules of Mines and Minerals till further orders.

Sd/- x x x x Secretary to Government (Mines) & Director of Mines & Geology (FAC)"

6. A perusal of the above memo shows that it was stated to be issued by the Secretary to Government stating that Additional Director, Mines and Geology was authorized to issue notices and take decision on the matters of urgent nature and immediate decision warranted under relevant Rules of Mines and Minerals till further orders. No doubt, this memo reads as if power is granted to Additional Director to issue notices and take other immediate decisions. However, learned Government Pleader, on the question of the Court as to where from the Secretary to Government has drawn the authority to issue such memo, could not convincingly clarified. It is to be noted that Statute has not specifically mentioned the

Additional Director for taking certain actions including issuance or determination of lease. Ergo, an executive fiat in the form of a memo cannot confer any power on any authority other than the Director to do certain acts. In that view, this Court is of the considered opinion that by virtue of the Memo No.24438/E1/2017, dated 03.01.2020, the Secretary to the Government cannot confer power on Sri K.C.L.Narasimha Reddy, Additional Director, to issue notice and take decisions on matters of urgent nature and immediate decisions as mentioned in the memo. Thus, the Additional Director has no statutory power to issue show-cause notices in the above writ petitions.

7. Accordingly, in view of the legal infirmity stated supra, the impugned notices are hereby set aside. However, this order will not preclude the authorities from issuing fresh show-cause notices to the petitioners through proper authority by enclosing all the relevant documents, in which case, the petitioners will have right to submit their explanation by taking all the factual and legal pleas which are available to them. These writ petition are disposed of accordingly.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

28.02.2020 SS

4