Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 848 (AP)

Vaseem Akram v. Govt. of A. P. , Hyderabad

2008-09-30

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2008
ORDER: The petitioner was granted mining lease, to quarry Building Stone and Road Metal, over the land in Sy.No.137 of Pashmamla village of Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, initially for a period of 5 years, with effect from 22.6.1991. Thereafter, it was renewed for a period of 15 years, from 22.6.1996 to 21.6.2011. 2. The lease granted and renewed in favour of the petitioner was terminated by the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad, the 3rd respondent herein, vide proceedings dated 26.11.1999. The petitioner preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent. Through order dated 8.4.2000, the 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal, as time barred. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent, by way of revision. The revision was also dismissed on 25.8.2008. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the various orders passed by the respondents herein. 3. Sri R. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the 3rd respondent cancelled the lease, on totally untenable grounds, and the appeal was rejected by the 2nd respondent, on the ground that there was delay of 42 days, in presenting the appeal. He submits that though the question involved in the revision was as to whether there was justification for the 2nd respondent, in not entertaining the appeal, the 1st respondent proceeded to discuss the matter on merits, and rejected the revision, putting a seal of approval on the order or cancellation and dismissal of the appeal. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Industries, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner did not avail the remedy of appeal in time, and since no justification for delay was pleaded, the 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal, as time barred. He contends that the powers of 1st respondent in a revision are very wide, and without standing on technicalities, it had discussed the matter on merits and recorded the conclusions on other aspects. 5. The petitioner had the mining lease up to 21.6.2011, by virtue of a renewal granted in the year 1996. On a report submitted by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology that the petitioner did not submit the returns and accounts, in the prescribed format, under Rule 28 (3) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, and that he did not pay Mineral Revenue dues of Rs.1,32,132/- and advance rent of Rs.60,729/-, the 3rd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 3.9.1998. Stating that the petitioner did not respond to the notice, he passed an order dated 26.11.1999, terminating the lease. 6. The petitioner availed the remedy of statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent. He pleaded that due to ill-health and financial problems, he could not pay the dues and submit the returns in time, and he expressed his willingness to pay the arrears. The 2nd respondent, however, dismissed the appeal, on the ground that there was 42 days delay, in presenting the appeal. 7. In the revision preferred by the petitioner before the 1st respondent, the only question was whether there was justification on the part of the 2nd respondent, in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay. The 1st respondent referred to several facts, which are not reflected, either in the order of cancellation or in the one passed by the appellate authority. It appears that the note submitted by a subordinate authority was reproduced. The only discussion that is referable to the hearing of the revision is reflected in para-8. It reads as under: "In order to dispose of the Revision Application filed by Sri Vaseem Akram, again a hearing was conducted on 28.7.2006. The petitioner has attended for the hearing and putforth his grievances. After hearing the arguments and after going through the record, Government do not find any valid reasons to interfere with the proceedings No.8221/R8/RR/2000, dated 8.4.2000 of the Director of Mines & Geology and by exercising the powers conferred under rule 35-A of APMMC Rules, 1966, hereby dismiss the Revision Application." It is rather unfortunate that a senior officer of the administrative service has given such a disposal to the revision filed by the petitioner. The petitioner specifically pleaded that there was delay of 7 days and even that occurred on account of his ill-health. The 1st respondent did not choose to address that issue at all and dismissed the appeal, by observing that it does not find any valid reasons to interfere with the proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology. It is on account of such half-baked and laconic disposals that the matters multiply and the issues remain unresolved. The 1st respondent did not choose to address that issue at all and dismissed the appeal, by observing that it does not find any valid reasons to interfere with the proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology. It is on account of such half-baked and laconic disposals that the matters multiply and the issues remain unresolved. This court would have remanded the matter to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration and disposal, but for the fact that the 1st respondent kept the revision pending for 8 years, and thereafter, passed an order, which, if at all, reflects total non-application of mind. 8. The 2nd respondent did not examine the matter objectively. When the petitioner pleaded ground of ill-health, it ought to have examined the plea, in the limited context of condonation of delay. Not a word was uttered as to how the reason pleaded by the petitioner for condonation of such meager delay, cannot be accepted. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed, and the order dated 8.4.2000 passed by the 2nd respondent, and the one, dated 25.8.2008, passed by the 1st respondent, are set aside. The delay in presentation of the appeal before the 2nd respondent is condoned. Since the cancellation of the lease in favour of the petitioner was on the ground of default in payment of mineral revenue dues and submission of returns, the 2nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders in the appeal, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. He shall also consider the feasibility of permitting the petitioner to rectify the lapses, if necessary, by imposing the conditions. There shall be no order as to costs.