Judgment : 1. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in not executing quarry lease deed in favour of the petitioner over one hectare of land in survey No.542 of Yalakallu Village, V.Kota Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. I have heard Sri M.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology. 3. Respondent No.2 has granted quarry lease for colour granite in favour of M/s. Sri Lakshmi Granites (hereafter referred to as transferor) over an extent of one hectare of land in survey No.542 of Yalakallu Village, vide proceedings No.6668/R5-1/2007 dated 23.07.2008 for a period of 20 years. The petitioner entered into an understanding with the transferor for transfer of lease in his favour. Respondent No.2 has accordingly issued proceedings dated 17.06.2013 granting permission for such transfer. Respondent No.3 has issued consequential proceedings on 26.06.2013 permitting the petitioner to pay advance dead rent of Rs.44,000/-, security deposit of Rs.44,000/-, Rs.2,000/- towards advance land assessment and Rs.1,000/- towards cess on land assessment along with deficit stamp duty and other relevant documents. During the interregnum, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Vigilance, raised a demand for Rs.24,74,840/- with ten times penalty of Rs.2,47,48,400/- against the transferor in respect of another mining lease, vide his order dated 11.06.2013. When the petitioner approached respondent No.3 with a request to complete the process of transfer, respondent No.3 has declined the petitioner’s request. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition. 4. Though no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, on instructions, submitted that the only reason for not transferring the mining lease in favour of the petitioner is that the transferor is in arrears of the mineral revenue under another lease and that therefore, unless it pays all the mineral revenue due under that lease, it is not entitled to transfer the subject lease to the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the second proviso to Rule 12(5)(h)(viii) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’). 5. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the second proviso to Rule 12(5)(h)(viii) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’). 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that as admittedly no mineral revenue arrears are payable by the transferor under the subject lease, his liability to pay mineral revenue under another lease will not operate as a constraint on the petitioner to get the lease transferred in his name. While referring to the phrase “any mineral revenue” in the second proviso to Rule 12(5)(h)(viii), the learned counsel submitted that the said expression is referable to the arrears due under the lease in respect of which the transfer is sought and not any other leases. 6. The learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology opposed the above submission and stated that the language of the second proviso to Rule 12(5)(h)(viii) is very clear and unambiguous which does not call for any interpretation contrary to the plain language. He further submitted that the expression “any mineral revenue” is very wide in its purport, which comprehends the arrears of mineral revenue payable by the transferor or transferee in respect of any mining lease with the Government. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Rule 10 of the Rules envisages payment of seigniorage fee or dead rent in respect of a quarry lease as per Schedules I and II of the Rules. Under the said rule, a lessee is liable to pay seigniorage fee or dead rent whichever is higher on all minor minerals despatched or consumed from the land at the rate specified in Schedules I and II as the case may be. 9. Rule 12(5)(h) of the Rules envisages conditions of licence or lease. Under Sub-Clause (viii) thereof, there is a prohibition on the licensee or lessee to assign, sub-let, transfer or otherwise dispose of the under licence or lease without obtaining the previous sanction in writing of the Director. The second proviso thereof reads as under: “Provided further that the transferor and the transferee shall not be in arrears of any mineral revenue to the Government.” 10. The phrase “mineral revenue” is not defined under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder. The second proviso thereof reads as under: “Provided further that the transferor and the transferee shall not be in arrears of any mineral revenue to the Government.” 10. The phrase “mineral revenue” is not defined under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder. From Rule 10 referred to above, it is evident that in respect of minor mineral, seigniorage fee or dead rent constitutes the mineral revenue. From the plain language of the said provision, it is evident that the transfer of a licence or lease is not permitted if the transferor or transferee is in arrears of any mineral revenue to the Government. The words “any mineral revenue to the Government”, construed from its plain language clearly mean that the transferor and transferee shall not be in arrears of any mineral revenue either under the lease which is proposed to be transferred or under any other lease, to the Government. If the rule making authority wanted to limit the arrears only to the lease under transfer, nothing would have prevented it from specifying so in the Rule itself by limiting the arrears of mineral revenue only to the lease under transfer, as was done in Rule 16 of the Rules. 11. Rule 16 of the Rules speaks of restriction on determination of lease. In case of determination on surrendering of leasehold area by the lessee, certain conditions have been imposed for such determination. One such condition is mentioned in Clause (b) of the proviso to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 16, which reads as under: “The lessee has paid all the dues payable to the Government under the lease upto the date of application.” (Emphasis added) 12. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, Rule 16 has restricted the payment of dues only to the lease under determination. In contra distinction to this Rule, the second proviso to Rule 12(5)(h)(viii) has not confined the liability of payment of arrears only to the lease under transfer. 13. There is another angle from which this issue can be examined. In contra distinction to this Rule, the second proviso to Rule 12(5)(h)(viii) has not confined the liability of payment of arrears only to the lease under transfer. 13. There is another angle from which this issue can be examined. If the rule making authority has intended that payment of arrears of mineral revenue shall be only in respect of the lease under transfer, it would not have mentioned clearance of arrears by transferee also because the proposed transferee would not be in arrears of mineral revenue in respect of lease under transfer even before the lease is transferred. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to distinguish between the liability of transferor and that of the transferee. According to the learned counsel, while in respect of transferee, he shall not be in arrears of any mineral revenue in respect of other leases also in respect of transferor, he shall not be in arrears only in relation to the lease under transfer. His submission is based on the reasoning that if a transferee is already in arrears of mineral revenue in respect of other leases, the Government would not be willing to transfer another lease in his favour knowing well that he is in arrears in respect of other leases. I am afraid, I cannot accept this interpretation sought to be placed on this Rule. The Rule needs to be interpreted uniformly in respect of both transferor and transferee. If the Rule intended that the transferee should not be in arrears of any mineral revenue in respect of other leases as well, the same interpretation will hold good for transferor as well. The obvious intention of the rule making authority in insisting on payment of arrears of any mineral revenue by both the transferor and transferee arising under all leases is that the transferor/transferee shall not be permitted to indulge in transfer of leases while they are in arrears of mineral revenue payable to the Government. In my opinion, the words “any mineral revenue” due to the Government are of very wide amplitude to take into their sweep all arrears of mineral revenue whether under the lease under transfer or under any other lease entered into by the transferor and the transferee. 14. The petitioner has not questioned the vires of the second proviso to Rule 12(5)(h)(viii). 14. The petitioner has not questioned the vires of the second proviso to Rule 12(5)(h)(viii). Therefore, even if any hardship is caused to the petitioner on account of existence of such Rule, no mandamus can be issued to the respondents to transfer the lease in favour of the petitioner contrary to the prohibition contained under the Rule when the transferor is admittedly in arrears of mineral revenue in respect of other leases. 15. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 16. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.28156 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.