Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 38 (AP)

J. C. Vijaya v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-01-27

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2021
ORDER: The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus declaring the order in proceedings No.30786/D-11-ATP/2017 dated 03.12.2019 passed by 2nd respondent rejecting the quarry lease application for barytes in an extent of 2 hectares in S.No.01/P (Compartment No.558) of Yellutla Village, Puttulu Mandal, Anantapuramu District as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and for a consequential direction to 2nd respondent to grant quarry lease in favour of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner’s case succinctly is thus: (a) The petitioner submitted an application dated 16.11.2017 to 2nd respondent for grant of quarry lease of barytes over an extent of 2 hectares in the aforesaid area which is a forest land. The 4th respondent inspected the applied area for quarry lease and made a recommendation to forward the application to 5th respondent to enable the applicant to obtain forest clearance under the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for short, ‘the FC Act, 1980’) subject to the satisfaction of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the APMMC Rules, 1966’). (b) The application of the petitioner was forwarded by 1st respondent to the Government of India on 28.05.2018 for diversion of forest land in accordance with Section 2 of the FC Act, 1980. The proposal of the State Government was accepted in principle by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (for short, ‘MoEFCC) and a letter was accordingly addressed to the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 21.08.2018 stating that the proposal was accepted subject to the conditions mentioned in their letter. Those conditions were complied with and the State Government had addressed a letter to the Government of India (GOI) on 25.10.2018, basing on which the GOI accorded Stage-II approval on 02.11.2018 and thereafter the Government of A.P. issued G.O.Ms.No.126 dated 16.11.2018. (c) Barytes was originally a major mineral to which the provisions of the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, ‘the MMDA Act’) were applicable. Subsequently the Union of India (UOI) issued notification on 10.02.2015 declaring 31 minerals including Barytes as minor minerals exercising the power under Section 3(e) of the MMDA Act. In its part, the Government of A.P. issued notification in G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 14.03.2016 and delegated powers to 2nd respondent to take action for grant of mining leases. Subsequently another notification i.e., G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 30.04.2016 was issued mentioning about the requirement of environmental clearance for operation of minor minerals. In its part, the Government of A.P. issued notification in G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 14.03.2016 and delegated powers to 2nd respondent to take action for grant of mining leases. Subsequently another notification i.e., G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 30.04.2016 was issued mentioning about the requirement of environmental clearance for operation of minor minerals. In view of G.O.Ms.No.56, the petitioner made an application to the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority and clearance was granted in order No.SEIAAAPANTMIN 0820191146/049 dated 17.09.2019 and the Pollution Control Board also issued its consent in its order No.ATP-1060/PCB/ZO-KNL/ CFP/2019 dated 24.09.2019. (d) It is submitted that though all the above necessary approvals were obtained by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has not passed order on her application. So, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17056/2019 and this Court in its order dated 06.11.2019 while disposing of the writ petition directed the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate order. Subsequently the 2nd respondent passed the impugned proceedings No.30786/D-11-ATP/2017 dated 03.12.2019, wherein, relying on the letter of 5th respondent dated 07.12.2017, withdrew the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued on 01.07.2019. The impugned order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and contrary to Rule 12 of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concessions Rules. When once the letter of intent is issued in favour of the applicant, it is obligatory on the part of the applicant to obtain permission from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Pollution Control Board and when the applicant has complied with the same, the 2nd respondent has to issue the mining lease. Once the letter of intent is issued, the subsequent proceedings are only consequential ministerial acts and the 2nd respondent has no power to reject the application. The petitioner paid more than Rs.50.00 lakhs to the Government to compensate the forest land which is approved for conversion. She also parted with her land and registered the same in the name of Government. In that view, the 2nd respondent is not justified in passing the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The respondents 1 & 2 filed counter opposing the writ petition, inter alia contending thus : (a) It is contended that the LOI earlier given was only a mere expression of an intention to enter into a contract at a later stage which cannot be construed that there was a final acceptance of the offer made by the petitioner leading to a contract. The LOI was hedged with other conditions and an intention is apparent and clear to enter into contract at a later stage. Unless the LOI crystallizes into a concluded contract by way of execution of a valid registered mining lease deed in Form G it cannot be inferred that the respondents have granted a mining lease in favour of the petitioner and the said LOI cannot be interpreted to vest in the petitioner any enforceable right. This legal position is evident in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Shimla v. Prem Latha, 2007 (11) SCC 40 . (b) The petitioner applied for quarry lease of barytes in an extent of 2 hectares in the subject land of Ellutla for a period of 20 years through Mee-seva online on 16.11.2017 vide application No.MINO11700060069 which was received by the 4th respondent. Thereupon, on 16.11.2017 the 4th respondent along with representative of the applicant inspected the subject land and submitted his report to the 2nd respondent. The 4th respondent vide File No.2447/QL/2017 dated 17.11.2017 has forwarded the statutory proformas submitted by the petitioner under the FC Act, 1980 for diversion of the forest land for non-forest purpose. (c) It is true that pursuant to order in W.P. No.17056/2019, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings No.30786/D11-ATP/2017 dated 03.12.2019 by relying on the reference No.45921/2001-FCA.4 dated 07.12.2017 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests that the proposals for forest land diversion to mining activity should be as per FC Act, 1980. As per the guidelines of the Forest Department, the mineral resources should be first exhausted outside the forest in entire State and then proposals under the FC Act, 1980 shall be accepted. In spite of repeated instructions issued to the Department of Mines & Geology and to the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology to exercise utmost caution in respect of the certificate to be issued by the Department about the non-availability of the mineral applied in other than forest areas, the ADM & G, Tadipatri has furnished wrong information to the DM&G as well as Forest Department while submitting the proposal for grant of quarry lease to the petitioner. The 4th respondent has grossly ignored the above instructions and recommended for the grant of quarry lease for barytes in forest land stating that it is a rare mineral and not available in the non-forest lands in Ananthapuram District and that there are no existing leases for barytes in the non-forest lands within his jurisdiction in spite of availability of the mineral abundantly outside the forest areas in other areas of the State. Hence, it was decided that it was not proper to sanction a quarry lease for barytes in the forest land when there are a number of existing leases for barytes in the State. (d) It is further contended that LOI cannot be equated with the concluded contract of lease and hence, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the lease was granted in her favour. It is also not open for the petitioner to contend that the 2nd respondent has to execute only ministerial acts and has no jurisdiction to refuse the grant of quarry lease. (e) The contention of the petitioner that the Government has passed an order vide G.O.Ms.No.126 and as the 2nd respondent being a subordinate authority, has no power to pass the impugned order is not correct. The Environment, Forests, Science & Technology Department (EFST) issued G.O.Ms.No.126 dated 16.11.2018 and accorded permission for diversion of the forest land for a period co-terminus with the period of mining lease subject to the conditions stipulated in the said G.O. As per condition No.6(xvii) of the said G.O, the State Government shall ensure compliance of all applicable acts, rules, regulations and guidelines of the Ministry which obligates the respondents to ensure that the statutory mandate under the FC Act is complied. Therefore, the power of regulation and control over all minor minerals vests with 2nd respondent and it is only a rejection of an application but not the termination of the mining lease. (f) As per the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003, exhaustion of mineral resources outside the forest areas is the relevant consideration which the 4th respondent has grossly ignored while recommending for the subject lease. There are number of existing leases for barytes in the State which is abundantly available outside the forest area. Therefore, the 2nd respondent rightly rejected the application of the petitioner which is valid in the eye of law. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 4. There are number of existing leases for barytes in the State which is abundantly available outside the forest area. Therefore, the 2nd respondent rightly rejected the application of the petitioner which is valid in the eye of law. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 4. The 5th respondent filed counter opposing the writ petition. While adopting the counter of the respondents 1 & 2, the 5th respondent further averred as follows: (a) The mining activity sought to be undertaken should be as per the provisions of the FC Act, 1980 and guidelines issued thereunder. As per which, the mineral resources should first be exhausted outside the forest in the entire state and only then shall the proposals under the FC Act be accepted. The same was brought to the notice of 2nd respondent by the 5th respondent vide reference No.45921/2001-FCA.4 dated 07.12.2017. It was further informed that the proposals were sent to the office of 5th respondent without relevant information being provided. It may be stated that a check list proforma M has to be furnished by the 2nd respondent while forwarding mining proposals under the FC Act, 1980. In the instant case, it has come to the notice of the 5th respondent that the 4th respondent had furnished wrong information to 2nd respondent as well as the Forest Department while submitting the proposal for grant of quarry lease to the petitioner. The 4th respondent grossly ignored the instructions and recommended for grant of quarry lease in Forest areas merely stating that it is a rare material and not available in the non-forest lands in Ananthapuram District, in spite of the fact that the mineral is available in abundance outside the forest areas in the State. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Heard the arguments of Sri O. Manoher Reddy, counsel for petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology representing the respondents 1 to 4, and learned Government Pleader for Forest representing 5th respondent. 6. Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, would argue that since the land applied for quarry lease falls within the forest area, the granting of such lease is governed by the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Learned counsel would submit that since permission from Central government is essential for granting mining lease in forest lands, the State Government submitted proposals seeking approval of the Central Government. Learned counsel would submit that since permission from Central government is essential for granting mining lease in forest lands, the State Government submitted proposals seeking approval of the Central Government. Thus, the State has followed the relevant provisions scrupulously. Thereafter, the Central Government and the State Governments have issued the necessary permissions i.e., Stage-I and Stage-II permits which is evident from the proceedings dated 25.08.2018 of the Central Government, issued to the Principal Secretary to the State Government. Consequently the State Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.126 dated 16.11.2018. Referring to clause 6 of G.O.Ms.No.126, learned counsel argued that keeping in view the approval accorded by MoEFCC, the Government of Andhra Pradesh accorded Final (Stage-II) approval for diversion of 1.95 hectares of forest land in S.No.01/P of Ellutla reserve forest, Ananthapuram District for mining lease in favour of the petitioner for extraction of barytes, subject to certain conditions mentioned in the said G.O. Learned counsel formidably argued that the conditions mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.126 were essentially relating to how the compensatory afforestation shall be undertaken by the Forest Department with the amount collected from the User Agency (writ petitioner); certain dos and don’ts to be observed by the User Agency while undertaking mining operations in forest area; the duty of User Agency to obtain environment clearance in terms of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and consent of the State Pollution Control Board etc. Learned counsel strenuously argued that none of the conditions mentioned in the said G.O. stipulated that it is only after exhaustion of barytes mineral in the non-forest area of entire State of Andhra Pradesh, should the petitioner apply for lease in the forest area. Neither Section 2 of the FC Act, 1980 nor its Rules nor the guidelines of the Central Government prescribed it as a condition precedent for application. Neither Section 2 of the FC Act, 1980 nor its Rules nor the guidelines of the Central Government prescribed it as a condition precedent for application. In that view, the 2nd respondent, who only implements the orders of the Central and State Governments, is neither empowered nor legally justified to reject the application of the petitioner on the letter/opinion of the 5th respondent that the mining lease application in the forest area can be considered only after depletion of barytes mineral in the non-forest area of the entire State of A.P. He vehemently argued that FC Act, 1980 is a self contained code relating to granting mining permissions in forest area and when the said Act does not expressly stipulate that mining applications can be made only after exhaustion of a particular mineral outside the forest area in the entire State, nor the Act gave power to the executive authorities to issue administrative guidelines in that regard, the 5th respondent cannot issue guidelines exceeding his authority. Hence, the rejection order is per se illegal and without jurisdiction. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar v. Management of Vishwa Bharata Seva Samiti, MANU/SC/0591/2001 : (2001) 8 SCC 378 . He further argued that the petitioner, pursuant to LOI, paid more than Rs.50.00 lakhs to the Government to compensate the forest land which was approved for conversion she also parted with her land and registered the same in the name of Government. In that view also, the 2nd respondent is not justified in passing the impugned order. 7. Per contra, learned Advocate General would argue that over the years applications for mining leases in forest areas have considerably increased and since issuance of permissions will bring in adverse consequences such as deforestation on one hand and consequent ecological imbalance on the other, certain guidelines have been issued by the Forest Department to the Mining Department basing on the instructions of the Government of India and also the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court expounding the need for preservation of natural resources along with flora and fauna. In that context, he would argue, the then Principal Chief Conservator of Forests addressed a letter in Rc.No.45921/2001/FCA-4 dated 15.06.2015 to the Director of Mines & Geology wherein he communicated certain guidelines to be followed before making a proposal for mining lease in a forest area. In that context, he would argue, the then Principal Chief Conservator of Forests addressed a letter in Rc.No.45921/2001/FCA-4 dated 15.06.2015 to the Director of Mines & Geology wherein he communicated certain guidelines to be followed before making a proposal for mining lease in a forest area. One of the guidelines, learned Advocate General would emphasise, is that the Mining Department in its proposal shall mention about the non-availability of the same mineral in non-forest areas. He would further submit that subsequently, again the then Principal Chief Conservator of Forests addressed a letter in Ref.No.45921/2001-FCA.4 dated 07.12.2017 expressing his unhappiness over the proposals being forwarded by the Mining Department without furnishing the required details. As, for instance, while certifying about the “availability of the mineral”, it is only mentioned that this quality of mineral is not available in the District, while the FC Act, 1980 prescribes that mineral resources should be first exhausted outside the forest in entire State and then proposals under the FC Act shall be accepted. He also stated that mining shall not be recommended deep inside the forest area which will lead to degradation of forest due to externalities. Learned Advocate General submitted that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests enclosed a check list-cum-proforma to his letter and requested the Director of Mines to furnish the information as per the said check list while forwarding the proposals thereafter. The check list encapsulates that the Mining Department shall furnish the details about the availability of the subject mineral, its annual production in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Learned Advocate General vehemently argued that these guidelines are in tune with the Forest Conservation Rules, 2003 and therefore, the Department of mines as well as Forest Department are expected to religiously follow them while dealing with the mining applications in forest areas. However, in the instant case, while forwarding the proposals, the 4th respondent grossly ignored the above guidelines and instructions and only mentioned that it is a rare material and not available in the non-forest lands in Ananthapuram District. Learned Advocate General lamented that while the information relating to the availability of the subject mineral in the entire State was to be furnished, the 4th respondent confined himself to Ananthapuram District which is against the guidelines. In fact, there is a reserve of 4 lack tonnes of barytes in the non-forest areas of Kadapa and Markapuram in Prakasam District. Learned Advocate General lamented that while the information relating to the availability of the subject mineral in the entire State was to be furnished, the 4th respondent confined himself to Ananthapuram District which is against the guidelines. In fact, there is a reserve of 4 lack tonnes of barytes in the non-forest areas of Kadapa and Markapuram in Prakasam District. He further argued that not realising this gross and severe mistake committed by the 4th respondent, proposals were forwarded to the Central Government for approval in terms of Section 2 of the FC Act, 1980 r/w Rule 6 of the Forest Conservation Rules, 2003. The Nodal Officer, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and other officers, who happened to scrutinise the proposals in accordance with Rule 6, could not locate the mistake in the proposals and as a consequence, the Central Government have issued approvals in principle i.e., Stage-I and II approvals and consequently, the State Government also issued Stage-I and II permits and further issued G.O.Ms.No.126, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (Section-II) Department, dated 16.11.2018 subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions is that ‘the User Agency’ i.e., writ petitioner and the State Government shall ensure compliance of all the Acts, Rules, Regulations and Guidelines of the Ministry for the time being in force as applicable to such project. Thereby, learned Advocate General would emphasise, the lease in the forest land could be considered and approved only after the depletion of the subject mineral outside the forest area in the State. Since that is not the case here and as the 4th respondent in his information under check list only mentioned about the status of the subject mineral pertaining to Ananthapuram District and not relating to the entire State of Andhra Pradesh, the guidelines cannot be said to be followed scrupulously. He reiterated that the guidelines issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests i.e., the 5th respondent are in tune with Section 2 of the FC Act, 1980 r/w Rule 6 of the Forest Conservation Rules, 2003 and therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that those guidelines have no statutory force. He reiterated that the guidelines issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests i.e., the 5th respondent are in tune with Section 2 of the FC Act, 1980 r/w Rule 6 of the Forest Conservation Rules, 2003 and therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that those guidelines have no statutory force. Learned Advocate General further argued that noticing the mistake committed by 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent, in the impugned proceedings dated 03.12.2019, while severely castigating the attitude of 4th respondent in grossly ignoring the guidelines and instructions repeatedly issued by the Department while forwarding the proposals, ultimately withdrew the Letter of Intent (LOI) earlier issued in favour of the petitioner. Learned Advocate General argued that the 2nd respondent has authority to withdraw the LOI under Rule 12(5)(d) of the APMMC Rules, 1966, because the subject mineral i.e., barytes was notified as a minor mineral and as per G.O.Ms.No.34, Industries & Commerce (M.II) Department, dated 14.03.2016, the Government have delegated powers to 2nd respondent for granting mining leases in respect of newly declared 31 minor minerals and the barytes being one of them. Then, strenuously defending the action of 2nd respondent, learned Advocate General argued that no right of the petitioner much less the fundamental right has been violated to invoke the writ jurisdiction. What was thus far accorded to the petitioner was only the LOI which, by no means, can be equated with a concluded contract to confer any justifiable rights in her. In expatiation, he would argue, the Stage-I and II approvals granted by the Central Government are only in principle approvals and the consequent Stage-and II permits and passing of G.O.Ms.No.126 by the State Government also are only up to the stage of issuing LOI. As such, under law, till a contract is executed between the parties, the petitioner cannot agitate violation of any of her rights. Since the LOI was found to be tainted by non-following of one of the important guidelines, which has severe ramification on the existence forests and ecological imbalance, such lopsided LOI was duly withdrawn by the impugned order. The said revised order of withdrawal cannot be said to be illegal or unauthorised. Since the LOI was found to be tainted by non-following of one of the important guidelines, which has severe ramification on the existence forests and ecological imbalance, such lopsided LOI was duly withdrawn by the impugned order. The said revised order of withdrawal cannot be said to be illegal or unauthorised. Learned Advocate General, while admitting that the petitioner incurred expenditure towards afforestation, however argued that by that count, no vested right will accrue to her and she cannot take shelter under doctrine of legitimate expectation when the matter involved public interest. To buttress his argument, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) v. International Trading Co., MANU/SC/0392/2003 : AIR 2003 SC 3983 . He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. The points for consideration are: (i) Whether the proceedings dated 03.12.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent are without authority and jurisdiction and hence, liable to be set aside? (ii) Whether the impugned proceedings dated 03.12.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent violate the rights of the petitioner to sustain the writ petition? 9. Point No.1 : Admittedly, the petitioner submitted application dated 15.11.2017 for quarry lease of Barytes mineral over an extent of 2 hectares in S.No.01/P (Compartment No.558) of Yellutla Village, Puttulu Mandal, Ananthapuram District, which is a forest land. The said proposal was sent to the GOI, Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEFCC) for approval under Section 2 of the FC Act, 1980 and GOI accorded in-principle (Stage-I) approval vide its order dated 21.08.2018 subject to certain conditions. Thereafter the State Government vide its letter No.2265/Section-II/2017 dated 25.10.2018 furnished compliance report. Thereafter, GOI, MoEFCC accorded Stage-II approval vide its letter dated 02.11.2018. Pursuant to thereof, the State Government also issued final (Stage-II) approval for diversion of 1.95 Hectares of forest land for mining lease for extraction of Barytes in favour of the petitioner subject to certain conditions and issued G.O.Ms.No.126, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (Section-II) Department dated 16.11.2018. Thereafter, GOI, MoEFCC accorded Stage-II approval vide its letter dated 02.11.2018. Pursuant to thereof, the State Government also issued final (Stage-II) approval for diversion of 1.95 Hectares of forest land for mining lease for extraction of Barytes in favour of the petitioner subject to certain conditions and issued G.O.Ms.No.126, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (Section-II) Department dated 16.11.2018. However, subsequently the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in No.30786/D-11-ATP/2017 dated 03.12.2019 withdrew the LOI earlier issued in favour of the petitioner and the same is impugned in this writ petition mainly on the contention that when once the Central and State Governments have issued Stage-I and II permits to diversify the forest land for mining operations, the 2nd respondent, who is only a subordinate to the Government, cannot reject permission on the apparent ground of protection of forests and mining can be granted only after depletion of barytes in the entire non-forest areas of Andhra Pradesh. It is formidably fulminated that except the executive fiat of 5th respondent, there is no such corresponding statutory rule or guideline in the FC Act, 1980. 10. The mother nature has endowed the mankind with vast expanse of natural resources like streams, rivers, oceans, trees, forests, wildlife, earth, mines, and minerals etc. Put together, they are constituent parts of environment as they are inter-dependents. It is the primary responsibility of the State and each individual citizen to make wise and frugal utilisation of the natural treasure on one hand and protect, preserve and pass over to the posterity. A lavish squander on the other hand, will lead to depletion and ecological imbalance which the mankind used to experience in the form of floods, tsunamis, droughts and certain types of diseases and waning of ozone layer, etc. Realising the threat, Article 48-A has been inserted by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. This Article lays down that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. A corresponding Article 51-A has also been inserted by the same Amendment Act to pronounce the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. A corresponding Article 51-A has also been inserted by the same Amendment Act to pronounce the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. The Apex Court in a number of judgments reiterated that it is the constitutional duty of not only the State but also of every citizen to protect and improve the environment and natural resources of the country. 11. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, MANU/SC/1007/1997 : (1997) 1 SCC 388 , the Apex Court was dealing with issue of M/s. Span Motels Private Limited resort management engaged in the high handed activity of changing the course of the river Beas on the ground that it was engulfing the Motel’s Span Club. In this context, the Apex Court happened to expound: (i) Doctrine of public trust (ii) Precautionary principle, and (iii) Polluter Pays principle Narrating on Doctrine of public trust, it was observed that the ancient Roman Empire developed a legal theory known as Doctrine of public trust on the matrix that certain common properties such as rivers, seashore, forests and the air were held by Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public. Those resources were either owned by no one (Res Nullious) or by everyone in common (Res Communious). Under the English common law, though the sovereign could own these resources, but the ownership was limited and the Crown could not grant these properties to private owners if the effect was to interfere with the public interest in the navigation or fishing. The Apex Court further observed that as per Joseph L. Sax, Professor of Law, University of Michigan, the Public Trust doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters, and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole, as it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. Those resources being the gift of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. Those resources being the gift of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. (a) Imbibing the public trust doctrine, our Apex Court observed that our legal system based on English common law includes the Doctrine of public trust as a part of its jurisprudence and thereby the State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. In the absence of any legislation, the executive acting under the Doctrine of public trust cannot abdicate the natural resources and convert them into private ownership or for commercial use unless the Courts find it necessary in good faith, for the public good and in public interest to encroach upon the said resources. (b) Speaking on the Precautionary principle, the Apex Court observed that the State Government and the statutory authorities must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. The lack of scientific certainty should not be shown as a reason for postponing the measures to prevent environmental degradation. The onus of proof is on the actor or developer/industrialists to show that his action is environmentally benign. (c) Then, explaining the principle ‘Polluter Pays’, the Apex Court referring to the its earlier judgment in Indian Council for Environ-Legal Action v. Union of India, MANU/SC/1112/1996 : 1996 (2) SCR 503 observed that once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. Applying the above three principles, the Apex Court quashed the lease deed issued in favour of the Motel by the GOI. 12. In Sher Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh case, the National Green Tribunal observed thus: “Right to clean environment is a guaranteed fundamental right. Various courts, particularly the superior courts in India are vested with wide powers, especially in terms of Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India to deal with issues relating to the fundamental rights of the persons. The courts, in fact, can even impose exemplary damages against the polluter. Various courts, particularly the superior courts in India are vested with wide powers, especially in terms of Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India to deal with issues relating to the fundamental rights of the persons. The courts, in fact, can even impose exemplary damages against the polluter. Proper and healthy environment enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the right guaranteed under Article 21. The State and the citizens are under a fundamental obligation to protect and improve the environment including forests, lakes, rivers, wild life and to have compassion for living creatures.” 13. In T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0596/2005 : (2006) 1 SCC 1 , the three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court read Article 48-A and Article 51-A together as laying down the foundation for jurisprudence of environmental protection and held that the State and the citizens are under fundamental obligation to protect and improve the environment including forests, lakes, rivers, wildlife, etc. 14. From the above jurimetrical jurisprudence, it is clear that the State holds natural resources of the nation under the principle of Public Trust, as per which, it is obligated to protect and preserve for public use. Equally every citizen has similar responsibility under the constitutional mandate. Further, as per Polluter Pay principle, the polluter is liable for prosecution and to pay damages. 15. To save the natural resources, relevant statutes were brought forth. Some of them are the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1985 to name some. 16. Be that it may, considering that diversion of the forest lands for non-forest purposes such as mining operations, construction of dams and reservoirs, industrial development etc. became rampant in causing depletion of forest wealth, the legislature in order to check further deforestation, promulgated a regulatory enactment called ‘the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980’. Section 2 of the said Act imposes restriction on the de-reservation of forests and restricts the use of forest land for non-forest purposes. became rampant in causing depletion of forest wealth, the legislature in order to check further deforestation, promulgated a regulatory enactment called ‘the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980’. Section 2 of the said Act imposes restriction on the de-reservation of forests and restricts the use of forest land for non-forest purposes. The said Section reads thus : “Restriction on the de-reservation of forests or sue of forest land for non-forest purpose – Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing – (i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression "reserved forest" in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved; (ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose; (iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government; (iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for re-afforestation. Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "non-forest purpose" means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for - (a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants; (b) any purpose other than re-afforestation; but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wildlife, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes.” Thus, Section 2 mandates that no State Government shall accord permission for use of any forest land for non-forest purpose without obtaining prior permission of the Central Government. 17. Be that it may, in exercise of rule making power conferred under Section 4 of the FC Act, 1980, the Central Government have passed the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003. Rule 6 deals with the submission of proposal seeking approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the FC Act, 1980. 17. Be that it may, in exercise of rule making power conferred under Section 4 of the FC Act, 1980, the Central Government have passed the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003. Rule 6 deals with the submission of proposal seeking approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the FC Act, 1980. Briefly stating this Rule says that every User Agency who wants to use any forest land for non-forest purpose shall make its proposal in Form ‘A’ for seeking first time approval. The Rule further narrates as to the duties of different hierarchical officers such as Nodal Officer, Divisional Forest Officer, Conservator of Forests, District Collector, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests etc. in dealing with the said proposal and forwarding the same to the State Government with their respective recommendations. If the State Government agrees with the proposal in-principle, then it shall forward the proposal along with its recommendations to the Central Government. This is the gist of the Rule 6. 18. We have noted above that the User Agency shall submit its proposal in Form ‘A’, if it seeks the user of forest land for mining operations for the first time. Appendix attached to the Rules contains the proforma of Form ‘A’ which is to be filled up by the User Agency. Clause 1 of the Appendix deals with “Project details”. Sub-clause (iv) of Clause 1 deals with “Justification for locating the project in forest area”. Therefore, it is incumbent upon User Agency to explain to the satisfaction of the authorities as to the pressing need or justification for locating the project in forest area. Meaning thereby, duty is cast on the User Agency to explain that the subject mineral is not available in the non-forest area of the concerned State. Then only the User Agency can be said to have justification for seeking permission for mining operations in the forest area as the subject mineral is not available in the non-forest area. Perhaps, in tune with the Rule 6 and Form ‘A’, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests addressed a letter in Rc.No.45921/2001/FCA-4 dated 15.06.2015 to the Director of Mines & Geology deprecating the action of mining officers in sending large number of applications seeking permission for mining operations in forest area without having due regard to the guidelines issued by the Government of India in that regard. Copy of the letter is filed along with the counter of respondents 1 & 2. Guideline No.1 is pertinent in this regard which is thus: “1. Rules stipulate that in the proposals it is essential to furnish full justification and the necessity for opening new mining leases for the particular mineral. Like-wise details of alternatives explored & rejected, have also to be furnished. A certificate from the competent authority from the Mining Department about non-availability of the same mineral in non-forest areas is required to be necessarily furnished along with each of the proposal for further consideration of the proposals under the said Act. In most of the proposals, these guidelines have not been followed. The agencies are mentioning in their applications that the mineral proposed for mining in forest area is of good quality and is not available outside the Reserve Forest. These are all subjective statements. The act doesn’t provide for mining/quarrying the minerals available outside the Reserve Forest based on the quality difference. It is requested to examine with great care, exercise caution and ensure that the law, act and guidelines are not circumvented while processing and furnishing such kind of proposals pertaining to private agencies.” (a) It is also to pertinent to note that when the above guidelines are not scrupulously followed by the Mining Officers while forwarding the proposals, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests again addressed a letter in Ref.No.45921/2001-FCA.4 dated 07.12.2017 to the Director of Mines & Geology stating that in spite of the Circular dated 15.06.2015 (mentioned supra), the proposals which were sent were not covered with the relevant information as for instance, while certifying about the availability of a mineral it was only mentioned that this quality of mineral was not available in the District, whereas, the FC Act, 1980 prescribes that mineral resource should be first exhausted outside the forest in entire State and then proposal under FC Act, 1980 shall be accepted. He further stated that the mining shall not be recommended deep inside the forest area as otherwise it will lead to degradation of forest due to externalities such as roads, labour camps, vehicle movements etc. He furnished a check list along with his letter to streamline the examination of the future proposals. The first point in the check list to be answered is:-the said mineral is not available in the non forest land. He furnished a check list along with his letter to streamline the examination of the future proposals. The first point in the check list to be answered is:-the said mineral is not available in the non forest land. The copy of aforesaid letter dated 07.12.2017 and check list are filed along with the counter of respondents 1 & 2. (b) Thus, a close scrutiny of the guidelines mentioned in letter dated 15.06.2015 and 07.12.2017 would show that the Principal, Chief Conservator of Forest (5th respondent) insisted the Department of Mines & Geology that the proposals for mining in forest area should invariably contain the information that the subject mineral was not available in the non-forest area of the entire State of A.P. for consideration. 19. Coming to the instant case, the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology i.e., the 4th respondent furnished the information as sought for in the check list. A copy of the said information is also filed along with the counter. Information No.1 is relevant which is as follows: Gist of information to be furnished Reply Certificate from the competent authority from Mining Department about non-availability of same mineral in non forest land It is a rare material and not available in the non-forest lands in Ananthapuramu district. In this office jurisdiction, there are no existing lease for Barytes in the non-forest land Thus, the 4th respondent confined the information relating to availability of Barytes to the non-forest land in Ananthapuramu District alone without mentioning the position about the entire State of Andhra Pradesh. That is why in the impugned order dated 03.12.2019 the 2nd respondent observed that the 4th respondent has grossly ignored the instructions while furnishing the information and recommended for grant of mining lease in the forest land. He observed that as per the instructions of the Principal Chief Conservator of forests, the mineral resources should be first exhausted outside the forest in the entire State and then only proposals under the FC Act, 1980 shall be accepted. The 2nd respondent categorically held that when there are number of existing leases for barytes in the State and the said mineral is abundantly available outside the forest area, it is not proper to sanction a quarry lease for barytes in the forest land. 20. The 2nd respondent categorically held that when there are number of existing leases for barytes in the State and the said mineral is abundantly available outside the forest area, it is not proper to sanction a quarry lease for barytes in the forest land. 20. The proceedings of the 2nd respondent were carped mainly on the ground that the alleged guideline referred to in the letters dated 15.06.2015 and 07.12.2017 of 5th respondent was not at all mentioned either in Section 2 of the FC Act, 1980 or its Rules and the said guideline is at best an instruction of the 5th respondent which cannot have a statutory force and therefore, the 2nd respondent ought not to have been carried away by such guideline to reject the proposal of the petitioner, which was already accepted in principle by the Central and State Governments. On a conspectus of the noble aim incorporated by legislation in the FC Act, 1980 and its Rules and particularly the justification ground in Form ‘A’, I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that the guideline referred to by 5th respondent in his letters dated 15.06.2015 and 07.12.2017 was only a personal instruction and nothing more. Having regard to the avowed object of the FC Act, 1980, one cannot give a restricted meaning to “non-forest area” as Ananthapuramu District alone instead of the entire State of Andhra Pradesh as sought to be projected by the 4th respondent. Such a restricted connotation will defeat the solemn purpose of the Act. It is to be noted that as per the submission of the learned Advocate General, there is a reserve of 4 lakh tonnes of barytes in Kadapa and Markapuram areas of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the proceedings of 2nd respondent can be said to be backed by authorization and jurisdiction. 21. It is argued that when Central and State Governments have issued Stage-I and II permits and the State Government issued a consequent G.O.Ms.No.126 dated 16.11.2018 also, there was nothing left for 2nd respondent, who is the subordinate officer of the State Government, except to issue a consequential proceedings of granting mining lease. I am of the considered view that this argument has no much force to reckon. I am of the considered view that this argument has no much force to reckon. It is true that in this case the Central and State Governments have accorded Stage-I and II permissions in favour of the petitioner for diversion of forest land for mining operations as per Rule 6 and 7 of the Forest Conservation Rules, 2003. However, such permission referred in those Rules is only a permission in-principle i.e., theoretical permission to issue LOI, but no final contract was executed between the Department of Mines and the petitioner pursuant to the said LOI. It should be noted that vide proceedings in GSR.No.423(E) dated 10.02.2015 of the Ministry of Mines, GOI, 31 minerals including the Barytes were declared as minor minerals. Consequently, the A.P. State Government in exercise of power under Section 15(2) of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 issued G.O.Ms.No.34, Industries & Commerce (M.II) Department dated 14.03.2016, whereby delegated the powers of granting mining leases in respect of those 31 minor minerals to the Director of Mines & Geology, A.P. i.e., 2nd respondent. Thus, it is pellucidly clear that though Central and State Governments have issued in-principle permit agreeing for diversification of forest land for mining operations in favour of the petitioner and consequential LOI was issued, however, the real power to grant mining lease and enter into contract vests with the State Government which is delegated in favour of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is authorized either to grant lease and enter into a contract or withdraw the LOI on a justifiable cause. 22. In the case of Vimal Bhai & other, appellants v. Union of India & others in Appeal No.7/2012, the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi (Principal Bench) was dealing with the question as to whether an appeal lies against the order of the Central government granting Stage-I forest clearance under Section 2(A) of the FC Act, 1980 and Section 16(e) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. After a detailed discussion, the National Green Tribunal held thus : 22. The questions now arises as to whether the approval granted by the Central Government under Section 2 of the FC Act granting in-principle sanction can be assailed by filing an Appeal, the said order not being the final allotment order. After a detailed discussion, the National Green Tribunal held thus : 22. The questions now arises as to whether the approval granted by the Central Government under Section 2 of the FC Act granting in-principle sanction can be assailed by filing an Appeal, the said order not being the final allotment order. The language of the Section stipulates that before permitting user of forest land for non-forest purposes, the State Government has to obtained prior approval of the Central Government, thus there is no ambiguity that the State Government is the authority to grant permission for use of forest land for non-forest purpose, but then such permission can be granted only after the Central Government accords approval. Further a right to use the forest land for non-forest purpose accrues only after the State Government passes the order, and not from the date of granting Stage – I or Stage – II Clearance. Therefore, it is clear that Stage-I & II permits issued by the Central and State Governments are only in-principle approvals for diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes and that by itself will not create any concluded contract between the parties as observed supra. G.O.Ms.No.126 dated 16.11.2018 upon which much emphasis is laid by the petitioner is concerned, the said G.O. also do not speak about creation of any concluded contract rather it speaks about issuance of Stage-I & II approvals by the Central and State Governments, subject to certain conditions. Condition No. XVII is important, which reads thus : xvii. The User Agency and the State Government shall ensure compliance to all the Acts, Rules, Regulations and Guidelines of the Ministry, for the time being in force, as applicable to such project. It is clearly mentioned therein that the User Agency and State Government shall comply with the acts, rules, regulations and guidelines of the Ministry. As already noted supra, the rules and guidelines resound that the User Agency must explain the justification for locating the mining project in forest area. In that context, the 2nd respondent, having found that there is abundant availability of Barytes in the non-forest area, had withdrawn the LOI. Therefore, the said G.O. also cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. The decision in Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar (supra) cited by the petitioner can be distinguished. In that context, the 2nd respondent, having found that there is abundant availability of Barytes in the non-forest area, had withdrawn the LOI. Therefore, the said G.O. also cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. The decision in Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar (supra) cited by the petitioner can be distinguished. In that case the appellants were Assistant Teachers working in a private Government aided school recognized by the Government of Karnataka. The method of appointment and condition of services of the teachers and employees were governed by Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 and the Rules framed thereunder. The appellants were appointed by the management as per the above Act and Rules. After working for some period, the appellants were prevented by the management from performing their duties. The Tribunal allowed their claims. However, the High Court of Karnataka approved the contention of the management that the appellants were appointed on probation basis subject to the approval of the Director of public instructions, Belgaum and as there being no approval to the appointments, the appellants have ceased to be the teachers and allowed the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the management. The matter was carried to the appeal and the Hon’ble Apex Court, having noticed that as per Rules, there was no requirement for the management to take any approval from Head of the Department, who is the Director of public instructions, held that the appellants were appointed and their conditions of service was governed by the provisions of the Act and statutory rules which do not empower the Government to supplement the rules by executive instructions. As in that case, the Act does not empower the State Government to supplement the rules by issuing administrative instructions, it was held not open to the Government to supplement the rules by executive orders. However, in our case the facts are quite different. Rule 6 of the Forest Conservation Rules, 2003 r/w Form ‘A’ would clearly depict that the User Agency shall submit the justification for locating the mining project in forest area. In pursuant thereof, guidelines were issued to the effect that while forwarding the proposal, the Mining Department shall mention whether the subject mine was available in the non-forest area of the entire State of Andhra Pradesh. In pursuant thereof, guidelines were issued to the effect that while forwarding the proposal, the Mining Department shall mention whether the subject mine was available in the non-forest area of the entire State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the impugned proceedings which were issued in consonance with the Act, Rules and guidelines cannot be said to be devoid of power and authority of 2nd respondent. 23. Point No. 2 : Regarding this point, it is already observed that mere issuing Stage-I and II permits by the Central and State Governments and consequent G.O. and issuance of LOI will not create any justiciable right in the writ petitioner unless a regular contract was entered into. It is to be noted that as per the impugned proceedings dated 03.12.2019, what was withdrawn by the respondent was only LOI but not a concluded contract. In Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Limited v. Shree Mahal Laxmi Mingrate Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd., MANU/SC/0024/1997 : 1996 (10) SCC 405 , it was observed by the Apex Court that a letter of intent is merely an expression of an intention to enter into a contract and if the conditions stipulated in the LOI are not fulfilled, the other parties are entitled to withdraw the LOI and there will be no binding legal relationship between the parties and at that stage, the appellant was entitled to look at the totality of the circumstances in deciding whether to enter into a binding contract with respondent No.1 or not. The decision in Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Shimla (supra) cited by the learned Advocate General more or less runs on similar principle. 24. Then in respect of the contention of the petitioner that pursuant to LOI, she paid Rs.50.00 lakhs to the Government for afforestation and she also parted with her land in favour of the Government, learned Advocate General argued that the said contention is in the lines of legitimate expectation, but, however, the legitimate expectation has no room in the case of involvement of public interest. I find this argument of learned Advocate General as formidable. It may be true that the petitioner might have incurred expenditure for afforestation pursuant to the LOI. However, that will not create any vested right in her to claim contractual rights where there is no concluded contract. I find this argument of learned Advocate General as formidable. It may be true that the petitioner might have incurred expenditure for afforestation pursuant to the LOI. However, that will not create any vested right in her to claim contractual rights where there is no concluded contract. As rightly argued by the learned Advocate General, it is a case where public interest militates against the private interest i.e., preservation of forest wealth and claim of mining lease are competing. In that view, neither the doctrine of legitimate expectation nor promissory estoppel has any applicability. In International Trading Co. case (supra) cited by the learned Advocate General, in the context of the rejection of renewal of license by the Government to foreign vessels for a deep sea fishing due to change in the governmental policy, the Apex Court observed thus : 13. Doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation cannot came in the way of public interest. Indisputably, public interest has to prevail over private interest. The case at hand shows that a conscious policy decision has been taken and there is no statutory compulsion to act contrary. In that context, it cannot be said that respondents have acquired any right for renewal. The High Court was not justified in observing that the policy decision was contrary to statute and for that reason direction for consideration of the application for renewal was necessary. Therefore, if the petitioner has incurred any expenditure and felt that she sustained damages, she can take recourse under relevant law if she is so advised, but on that ground she cannot claim for mining lease. 25. Thus, on a conspectus of facts and law, the writ petition does not merit consideration, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.