TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 1127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion]. On 6.1.1991, the Government of Andhra Pradesh accorded permission for grant of sub-lease by the Corporation subject to certain terms and conditions mentioned in G.O.Ms.No. 215 dated 22.4.1980. The Government of Andhra Pradesh by different orders accorded permission for grant of sub- lease for further extent of lands in the month of May 1991. The Government of Andhra Pradesh on 1.12.1993 took decision to put an end to all the existing sub-leases in order to enable the Corporation to carry on the mining operations directly and on 7.12.1993, the Government withdrew permission granted earlier to the Corporation to grant sub- leases in respect of certain areas. The appellants in the first set of appeals challenged, by way of writ petitions before the High Court on the various grounds, the validity and legality of the said notifications withdrawing the permission granted earlier to sub-lease the mining lands in question. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions on the basis that the Government had not followed due procedure as contemplated under Section 4-A of the Mines Minerals (Regulation Development) Act, 1957 [hereinafter referred to as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or whatever could be done under the Rules could be undone as provided under the General Clauses Act. On this aspect also, the Full Bench felt that inasmuch as barytes being a major mineral coming under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Government under the Act, the executive power of the State could extend only to the extent of the legislative power to be exercised by the State and, therefore, no executive power was available to the State Government. On the argument raised on the basis of the General Clauses Act, it was held that this is not a simple case of mere grant of permission and withdrawal without any other consequences. Further the same procedure as provided in the matter of grant of permission should have been followed in the matter of withdrawal of permission, but such procedure had not been followed. The High Court did not agree that the exercise of power was under that provision and that was sufficient for the Full Bench to proceed to dispose the matter. However, the Full Bench noticed certain other arguments, namely, [1] that no consent under Rule 37 of the Rules could have been granted by the State Government and no sub-lease could have been entered into b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a period of three months from the date of the judgment meaning thereby that the sub-leases would not be entitled to carry on the mining operations till then, shall remain stayed. The sub-lessees shall, however, maintain true and faithful account of the mining operation which would be verified by the appropriate Mining Officer every fortnight. It is clarified that the exercise of the right of the Corporation as well as the State Government to proceed in accordance with law as a result of the High Courts judgment is not stayed. Thereafter, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued notices and on receipt of replies thereto, heard the appellants, who are the original writ petitioners, and decided against them. Against that decision, revision petitions were filed under Section 30 of the Act read with Rule 35 of the Rules before the Central Government [Tribunal] and the Central Government [Tribunal] by its order made on 9.9.1998 dismissed the said revision petitions. It appears that only one petitioner, C.M.Ramanath Reddy alone filed W.P.Nos.36884/98 and 366885/98 against that order of the Central Government [Tribunal] before the High Court and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation could not sustain the action taken by them. Now when the mining leases have come to an end by efflux of time and the term of those sub-leases have already expired, it will be an academic exercise to examine the various contentions urged in these appeals. Therefore, we are of the view that these appeals filed either by the private parties or by the Government and the Corporation have become infructuous. Thus the first set of appeals are disposed as having become infructuous, except to the extent indicated in case of Sri V. Ramalingaiah. From the facts available on record Sri V. Ramalingaiah obtained sub-lease pertaining to land comprised in Survey Nos. 83/1, 8 to 10, 84/2, 20 and 22, measuring about 1 acre 89 cents on 17.5.1991. It is not clear as to whether this lease is granted pursuant to the earlier general permission obtained from the Government in respect of all sub- leases under Rule 37 or any separate permission was secured from the Government and on what date. Therefore, it becomes necessary to examine as to when the consent was given in his case. Let the Government determine if the consent in this case has been given subsequent to the amendment of Rule 37 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... striction is upon the grant of mining lease on the State Government and the State Government had already granted sub-leases in favour of the Corporation and the State Government is not leasing the lands in question in favour of the writ petitioners. The sub- lease is granted by the Corporation, to which the lease has already been granted and, therefore, sub-lease made is in order. However, reliance was placed on Rule 37 of the Rules, which was amended substantially on 20.2.1991 and imposed the condition that the lessee shall not without the previous consent in writing of the State Government and in the case of mining lease in respect of any mineral specified in the First Schedule to the Act, without the previous approval of the Central Government, assign, sublet, mortgage, or in any other manner, transfer the mining lease, or any right, title or interest therein or enter into or make any bona fide arrangement, contract or understanding. Sub-leases having been granted prior to February 20, 1991, the High Court took the view that Rule 37 was not attracted to the case of the writ petitioners. Thereafter, the High Court proceeded to consider as to in what manner the writ petitioners sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought not to have exercised its power under Article 226 of the Constitution placed very heavy reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Y.S.Raja Reddy vs. A.P.Mining Corporation Ltd., 1988(2) ALT 722, and the decisions of this Court in Harshankar vs. Deputy Excise Taxation Commissioner, 1975 (1) SCC 737; Radhakrishna Agarwal vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 1496; Ram Lal Sons vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1976 SC 54; Shiv Shankar Dal Mills vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1980 SC 1037; Ramana vs. I.A.Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628; Basheeshar Nath vs. Income Tax Commissioner, AIR 1959 SC 149. Though there is one set of cases rendered by this Court of the type arising in Radhakrishna Agarwals case, much water has flown in the stream of judicial review in contractual field. In cases where the decision making authority exceeded its statutory power or committed breach of rules or principles of natural justice in exercise of such power or its decision is perverse or passed an irrational order, this Court has interceded even after the contract was entered into between the parties and the Government and its agencies. We may advert to three decisions of this Court in M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the lease revived in its favour was urged. It was held that though Section 18 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 was attracted to the case but as substantial period of lease had already expired, relief could be given only under Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act. Therefore, in that case this Court did not think that it was a fit case for grant of decree for specific performance as there are only a few months left before unexpired portion of the lease will run out. Indeed by the time the lease comes to be extended in pursuance of the Courts order it would be scarcely worthwhile to carry on quarrying operations. There are at least three weighty reasons as to why the period of sub-lease could not have been extended after the expiry of period of original lease and they are :- (i) In most of the present cases, the interruptions in respect of which the claim is made is for a period of about 10 months and in one other case an additional period of 6 months. In some cases the lease having expired as early as in the year 1995 or in others in 1998, it would not be appropriate to direct the extension of lease in the year 2001 particularly when the sub-leases have expired as a result ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
