RAJENDRA BABU - (1.) IN these two sets of appeals, the appellants are calling in question two orders made by two Full Benches of the High Court - One on 2/09/1994 and the other on 4/03/1996. Civil Appeal Nos. 6656 - 6657 / 94, 6658 - 6659 / 94, 6642 - 6646 / 94, 6647 - 6650 / 94 and 6651 - 6655 / 94.
(2.) THE Government of Andhra Pradesh declared, on 7-1-1974, that the barytes ore bearing areas in Mangampett and Anandarajpet of Cuddapah District are reserved exclusively for exploitation in the public sector however excluding the lands that had already been leased to private persons. By two notifications issued on 10-2-1975 and 19-2-1983, the Government of Andhra Pradesh granted mining lease over an extent of different areas in favour of the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). 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 dates 22-4-1980. The Government of Andhra Pardesh 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 Pardesh 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 and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Writ appeals were preferred against the same and the Division Bench referred the matter to a Full Bench. In writ appeals Nos. 131/94 to 134/94 and 169/94 to 175/94, the Full Bench of the High Court examined the questions raised before it by an order made on 2-9-1994. The Full Bench first considered the effect of Clauses 15 and 16 in the deed of sub-lease executed by the Corporation. It was observed by the Full Bench that Clause 15 reserved the right of the lessee Corporation to terminate the sub-lease if there is any violation of terms and conditions of the lease or default or any breach of contract and, therefore, the High Court felt that it was nobody's case that the Corporation has taken steps to prematurely terminate the sub-leases because none of the conditions for exercise of that right having arisen. It was also held that Clause 16 merely provided that in the event of termination of sub-leases any damage was to arise by reason of the State Government withdrawing the permission under Rule 37A of the Rules during the tenure of the leases or on account of any other governmental action, the sub-leasee is precluded from claiming damages from the lessee Corporation. therefore, the Full Bench 16 is attracted to the case.
(3.) NEXT the Full Bench examined as to whether the order directing the premature determination of the sub-lease without complying with Section 4A(3) of the Act or withdrawing consent for sub-lease without notice is invalid in law. On examination of the scheme of the Act, the Full Bench found that undisputedly barytes is a major mineral and Section 4A(1) of the Act is attracted only in cases of major minerals and in the present cases, the State Government could not have exercised that power as available under Section 4A of the Act because that was reserved only to the Central Government. Thereafter, the Full Bench considered the withdrawal of consent given for granting the sub-leases to the Corporation in favour of the writ petitioners. This aspect was examined with respect to the scope of Rule 37 of the Rules. Rule 37, as such, does not provide for withdrawal of the consent once given and, therefore, the Government and the Corporation relied upon the executive power of the Government to withdraw the same 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 in as much 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.;