ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus declaring the order dated 09.11.2020 passed by the 1st respondent vide Memo No. 6857/M.1(2)/2018-2 to the extent of directing the petitioner to pay all mineral revenue arrears and determining the lease passed by 2nd respondent vide D.Dis. Proc. No. 1758/R1-1/2018 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 19 of the Constitution of India read with the A.P. Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1966 (for short, 'the APMMC Rules, 1966') and consequentially set aside the same. 2. Petitioner's case pithily is thus: Petitioner holds quarry lease for Colour granite in an extent of 7 Hectares in Sy. No. 73 of Melisathiwada Village, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District for a period of 20 years. The Director of Mines and Geology/2nd respondent vide D.Dis.Proc. No.1758/R1-1/2018, dated 08.06.2018, determined the quarry lease of the petitioner on the ground that the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Srikakulam/3rd respondent submitted proposal for determination after inspection of the quarry lease and after noting certain lapses on the part of the lessee as follows : (a) The lessee was not operating the quarry lease and there were no traces of quarrying activity as on the date of inspection. (b) The lessee failed to maintain boundary pillars in violation of Rules 28(2) and 31(vi) of APMMC Rules, 1966. (c) The lessee has not obtained the dispatch permits since 11.03.2013 in contravention of APMMC Rules, 1966. The Director in his order mentioned that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for the explanation and the explanation submitted was found to be not productive and not supported by any documents showing the reasons for non-operation of the quarry for more than two years since 11.03.2013 and the reply was only a routine one and thus not tenable. For all the aforesaid grounds the 2nd respondent determined the lease vide D.Dis. Proceedings No. 1758/R1-1/2018 dated 08.06.2018. The petitioner preferred revision before 1st respondent and the said authority after calling for remarks from 2nd and 3rd respondents and after affording personal hearing to the petitioner, passed the impugned order vide Memo No. 6857/M.1(2)/2018-2 dated 09.11.2020 as follows : "6. After hearing the arguments on both sides, the Revisional Authority allowed the revision application of Sri S. Koteswara Reddy subject to payment of all Mineral Revenue Arrears as per MRA and set-a-side the D.Dis.Proc. After hearing the arguments on both sides, the Revisional Authority allowed the revision application of Sri S. Koteswara Reddy subject to payment of all Mineral Revenue Arrears as per MRA and set-a-side the D.Dis.Proc. No. 1758/R1-1-2018, dated 08.06.2018 of the Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimparnam. 7. Accordingly the Revision application is disposed off under Rule 35-A Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and the Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimparnam shall take further necessary action in the matter." Though satisfied with the impugned order allowing the revision application and setting aside the lease determination order passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner, however aggrieved by the condition in the order directing the petitioner to pay all Mineral revenue arrears, filed the instant writ petition. 3. The respondents filed counter opposing the writ petition contending thus: The petitioner is a transferee lessee from M/s. Sri Sai Granites for the unexpired period of lease till 15.10.2029. The 3rd respondent submitted proposals to 2nd respondent vide Lr. No. 3112/Q/2007 dated 06.03.2018 basing on the inspection conducted by Maha Check Vigilance Teams which have noticed certain violations of the APMMC Rules, 1966 committed by the petitioner such as non-operation of the lease since 11.03.2013, non-erection of boundary pillars and failing to take dispatch permits since 11.03.2013. On a show-cause notice issued by 2nd respondent, the petitioners vide letter dated 08.05.2018 submitted reply with untenable reasons. He submitted that there is an approach road between the main road and quarry site and in that respect there was some issue and petitioner negotiated with surrounding land owners and the matter got resolved recently. The petitioner further stated, due to volatile situation in the market he was unable to proceed with the quarry operations and he also stated that he had personal health issues in the last year and hence, he could not concentrate on work. On those grounds he stated that there were no quarry operations. He further stated that he had paid Advance Dead Rent for the year 2018-19 and requested to allow to operate the quarry. Not satisfied with the explanation, 2nd respondent vide D.Dis. Proceedings No.1758/R1-1/2018 dated 08.06.2018, has issued orders determining the quarry lease of the petitioner. It was observed by 2nd respondent the reason shown for non-operation of the quarry and the road issue projected were baseless. Not satisfied with the explanation, 2nd respondent vide D.Dis. Proceedings No.1758/R1-1/2018 dated 08.06.2018, has issued orders determining the quarry lease of the petitioner. It was observed by 2nd respondent the reason shown for non-operation of the quarry and the road issue projected were baseless. Due to non-operation of the quarry lease by the petitioner, the State Exchequer was deprived of mineral revenue. Hence, the determination order. It is further contended that as per the Form-G of the Quarry Lease Deed signed by the petitioner and also as per Rule 10 of the APMMC Rules, 1966, the petitioner has right to enjoy the lease and also to extract minerals. Whether or not any mineral is removed, minimum amount is to be paid by the lessee called "Dead Rent" and as per the covenants of the Lease Deed 8(1) therein, the petitioner shall pay the dead rent one month in advance i.e., 1st of March every year during the subsistence of lease period regularly whether formally demanded and called for or not. Further, the petitioner has violated Rule 12(5)(h)(v) of the APMMC Rules, 1996 by not erecting the boundary, pillars and maintain them. The petitioner also violated GCDR, 1999 by not intimating temporary discontinuance of work in quarry. The reply submitted by the petitioner is not productive and without any supportive documents of the claims made by him in his reply. Hence, the 2nd respondent has rightly determined the lease. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision before the Government on 04.07.2018. After personal hearing, 1st respondent has disposed of the revision petition by setting aside the proceedings of 2nd respondent subject to payment of all Mineral Revenue Arrears. The petitioner is bound by the said order. It is further contended that the clarification said to be issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Steel & Mines, Department of Mines is not applicable to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 4. The petitioner filed rejoinder refuting the averments in the counter filed by the respondents. The petitioner is bound by the said order. It is further contended that the clarification said to be issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Steel & Mines, Department of Mines is not applicable to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 4. The petitioner filed rejoinder refuting the averments in the counter filed by the respondents. In Para 3 of the rejoinder, petitioner made it clear that the present writ petition is confined to the issue that the petitioner is not liable to pay mineral revenue arrears for the period the lease was under termination i.e., 08.06.2018 to 09.11.2020, as during the said period the petitioner could not operate the mining lease area as he did not have physical control over the mining lease area. It is further stated in the rejoinder that the Government of India on 09.10.2001 had issued a clarification to all State Governments regarding charging of Dead Rent in certain cases. In the said Circular, the Union of India has referred to certain judgments of Karnataka High Court and Rajasthan High Court and clarified that in cases where the mining lease was determined/terminated by the statutory authorities and subsequently restored by Competent Authority or by Courts, the Dead Rent shall not be payable for such period. He thus prayed to allow the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner Sri N. Vijay, and learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology representing the respondents. 6. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner is liable to pay dead rent for the period from 08.06.2018 to 09.11.2020 i.e., from the date of termination of the lease as per the proceedings of 2nd respondent till 09.11.2020 i.e., allowing of revision petition by 1st respondent. 7. Point: As already stated supra, the 2nd respondent, having found certain lapses on the part of the petitioner and not satisfied with his reply to the show-cause notice, determined the lease by his order dated 08.06.2018. The petitioner preferred revision before 1st respondent which was allowed on 09.11.2020. The 1st respondent set aside the order of 2nd respondent subject to payment of all mineral revenue arrears by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred revision before 1st respondent which was allowed on 09.11.2020. The 1st respondent set aside the order of 2nd respondent subject to payment of all mineral revenue arrears by the petitioner. In this context, the clause 'payment of all mineral revenue arrears' can be understood as payment of only dead rent for the interregnum period because the petitioner has not operated the quarry lease and did not obtain dispatch permits since 11.03.2013 and hence, question of payment of royalty does not arise. Therefore, if at all he has to pay any arrears, it means only dead rent. Section 9-A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 deals with the payment of dead rent. It is profitable to extract said provision herein. "9-A. Dead rent to be paid by the lessee.- (1) The holder of a mining lease, whether granted before or after the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Amendment Act, 1972, shall notwithstanding anything contained in the instrument of lease or in any other law for the time being in force, pay to the State Government, every year, dead rent at such rate, as may be specified, for the time being, in the Third Schedule, for all the areas included in the instrument of lease: Provided that where the holder of such mining lease becomes liable, under Section 9, to pay royalty for any mineral removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee from the leased area, he shall be liable to pay either such royalty, or the dead rent in respect of that area, whichever is greater. (2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Third Schedule so as to enhance or reduce the rate at which the dead rent shall be payable in respect of any area covered by a mining lease and such enhancement or reduction shall take effect from such date as may be specified in the notification Provided that the Central Government shall not enhance the rate of the dead rent in respect of any such area more than once during any period of [three years]." Thus, as can be seen, the lessee of the mining lease or the holder of the mining lease is liable to pay the dead rent to the State Government every year as per the specified rates. The payment of the dead rent is for the lease of the surface of the land without reference to whether mining operations were conducted or not by the lessee or his agent during the tenure of the lease. On the other hand, as per Section 9 of the Act, royalty has to be paid by the holder of the mining lease in respect of any mineral removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee from the leased area at the specified rate. Thus, while dead rent is paid on the surface of the land leased, the royalty is paid on the quantity of the mineral extracted, excavated and gained. The distinction between the term 'royalty' and 'dead rent' has been expounded by the Apex Court in D.K. Trivedi and Sons v State of Gujarat, AIR 1986 SC 1323 After referring to Black's "Law Dictionary", Jowitt's "Dictionary of English Law", Halsbury's "Laws of England", the Apex Court has drawn the distinction as follows : 40. In a mining lease the consideration usually moving from the lessee to the lessor is the rent for the area leased (often called surface rent), dead rent and royalty Since the mining lease confers upon the lessee the right not merely to enjoy the property as under an ordinary lease but also to extract minerals from the land and to appropriate them for his own use or benefit, in addition to the usual rent for the area demised, the lessee is required to pay a certain amount in respect of the minerals extracted proportionate to the quantity so extracted Such payment is called "royalty". It may, however, be that the mine is not worked properly so as not to yield enough return to the lessor in the shape of royalty. In order to ensure for the lessor a regular income, whether the mine is worked or not, a fixed amount is provided to be paid to him by the lessee This is called "dead rent". "Dead rent" is calculated on the basis of the area leased while royalty is calculated on the quantity of minerals extracted or removed. In order to ensure for the lessor a regular income, whether the mine is worked or not, a fixed amount is provided to be paid to him by the lessee This is called "dead rent". "Dead rent" is calculated on the basis of the area leased while royalty is calculated on the quantity of minerals extracted or removed. Thus, while dead rent is a fixed return to the lessor, royalty is a return which varies with the quantity of minerals extracted or removed Since dead rent and royalty are both a return to the lessor in respect of the area leased, looked at from one point of view dead rent can be described as the minimum guaranteed amount of royalty payable to the lessor but calculated on the basis of the area leased and not on the quantity of minerals extracted or removed. In fact, Clause (ix) of Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977, defines "dead rent" as meaning "the minimum guaranteed amount of royalty per year payable as per rules or agreement under a mining lease." Stipulations providing for the lessee's liability to pay surface rent, dead rent and royalty to the lessor are the usual covenants to be found in a mining lease. 41. The grant of a mining lease would thus provide for the consideration for such grant in the shape of surface rent, dead rent and royalty." In the case of Enterprising Enterprises Private Limited v. Government of A.P., 2003 (4) ALD 510 : 2003 (3) ALT 18 , a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh while considering the question whether a owner of a patta land, who was granted lease for extracting granite in the said land, was liable to pay dead rent or not, happened to draw the distinction between 'royalty' and 'dead rent'. By referring to the judgment in D.K. Trivedi and Sons case (supra), the learned Judge has ultimately held thus : "27. It is also to be noted that the State would be enriched by collecting the royalty on the quantity of the mineral that is extracted. If no mining operation was undertaken at all, the State would be put to more loss i.e., it would be deprived of royalty, which will be proportionate to the quantity extracted. It is also to be noted that the State would be enriched by collecting the royalty on the quantity of the mineral that is extracted. If no mining operation was undertaken at all, the State would be put to more loss i.e., it would be deprived of royalty, which will be proportionate to the quantity extracted. In order to check this lapse and see that the lessee after obtaining the lease undertakes the mining operation with the expected standards, specific provisions are made and hence notwithstanding the quantity of mineral extracted, lessee is bound to pay the State the 'dead rent'. 28. This is imperative for the further reason that the lessee cannot be permitted to keep the land taken on lease, idle without mining activity. Had the lease been given to any other enthusiastic entrepreneur, State would be benefited by way of royalty apart from dead rent. Therefore, so long as the lease is subsisting, the lessee is bound to pay the minimum guaranteed amount as 'dead rent'. In other words unless there is cessation of lessor and lessee relationship, it is incumbent upon the lessee to pay the dead rent or the minimum guaranteed amount and that the State shall not be put to loss for the violations on the part of the lessee by keeping the land taken on lease idle. xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 35. From a reading of the above section it is clear that no distinction, between the lessee as a pattadar and a lessee of the land belonging to the Government, is discernible. What all Section 9-A provides for is that the dead rent has to be paid by the lessee. Therefore, the pattadar as a lessee, does not have any statutory right to claim exemption from payment of dead rent or other statutory payments, which are obligated to be paid by any other lessee." 8. Thus, the above jurimetrics jurisprudence would explain that while holder of the lease is liable to pay royalty only when he extracts mineral from the leasehold land, he will be nevertheless liable to pay dead rent irrespective whether he extracts mineral or not during the currency of the lease period. It is because the payment of dead rent is for ensuring minimum returns to the lessor i.e., the State for depriving the leasehold premises in favour of the holder of the lease for a specified lease period. It is because the payment of dead rent is for ensuring minimum returns to the lessor i.e., the State for depriving the leasehold premises in favour of the holder of the lease for a specified lease period. Such payment of dead rent shall be continued during the currency of the lease till cessation of the lessor and lessee relationship. 9. Then coming to the case on hand, the admitted facts would show that a Maha Check Inspection team conducted inspection of the quarry lease area held by the petitioner on 03.02.2018 and noticed the following violations : (a) The lessee failed to maintain the boundary pillars which is a breach under Rules 28(2) and 31(vi) of APMMC Rules, 1966. (b) The lessee is not working the Quarry lease and there is no traces of quarrying activity as on date of inspection. (c) The lessee has not obtained the dispatch permits since 11.03.2013 which is a breach under Rule 34 of APMMC Rules, 1966. We are mainly considered with the violations (b) and (c) which would show that since 11.03.2013 the petitioner did not obtain dispatch permits and there were no traces of quarrying operations as on the date of inspection. Thus, it can be safely concluded that since 11.03.2013 till the date of inspection and also subsequently till 09.11.2020 i.e., date of revision order there was no mining activity conducted by the petitioner. As such the question of payment of royalty does not arise and hence, from the direction of 1st respondent "subject to payment of all mineral revenue arrears" the payment of royalty can be excluded. 10. Then payment of dead rent is concerned, there can be no such excuse as the law is clear that during the currency of lease, the petitioner is liable to pay dead rent whether or not he conducted mining operations. However, as rightly argued by the learned Counsel for petitioner, by virtue of the proceedings of 2nd respondent, the lease was determined w.e.f. 08.06.2018 and the lease can be said to be legally revived only by virtue of the order dated 09.11.2020 of 1st respondent. So, in my considered view, for the interregnum period of 08.06.2018 - 09.11.2020 the petitioner is not liable to pay dead rent because lease was determined during the said period. So, in my considered view, for the interregnum period of 08.06.2018 - 09.11.2020 the petitioner is not liable to pay dead rent because lease was determined during the said period. Sans that period, the petitioner would be liable to pay dead rent for the other period during the currency of lease. It is to be noted, in support of his contention the petitioner relied upon Circular Instructions No. 16(2-1)2001-MVI, issued by Government of India, Ministry of Steel and Mines, Department of Mines, New Delhi, dated 09.10.2001. The said instructions read thus : No. 16(2-I)2001-MVI Government of India Ministry of Steel & Mines Department of Mines New Delhi, dated 09.10.2001 To, 1. The Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, All the State Governments. 2. The Director, Mining & Geology, All the State Governments. 3. Secretary General, Federation of Indian Mineral Industries, New Delhi. Sub : Clarification regarding charging of Dead Rent in certain cases. Sir, In terms of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, (MMDR Act), "the holder of mining lease is required to pay to State Government every year dead rent at such to as may be specified for the time being in the Third Schedule to the MMDR Act, 1957, under the areas included in the instrument of lease. However, when the holder of the mining lease becomes liable to pay royalty for any mineral removed or consumed from the lease area, he shall be liable to pay either royalty or the dead rent in respect of that area whichever is greater. There have been instances of the holders of mining leases and quarry lessee approaching the Courts seeking relief from payment of dead rent in cases where due reasons beyond the control the lessees were not able to work the area held by them under the mining lease. In case of Karnataka High Court judgment dated 20th July, 1993 in the matter of WP No. 38462/1989 between M/s. Jyoti Brothers and the State Government of Karnataka, the Court ruled that after premature determination of the mining lease since the lessee was no legally allowed to carry out mining activities, even if the lease was restored later, the State Government could not demand arrears of dead rent for the intervening period. In the case of Rajasthan High Court judgment between Chhoga Ram Mundolia v. The State of Rajasthan, in the matter of SB CWP No. 2418/1986, dated 14th July, 1992, the Court observed that even after execution of the lease granted, the petitioner could not operate and did not excavate and utilize the leased property, and the lease was terminated and the lessee asked to pay dead rent with interest thereon as penalty by the State Government. The Court ruled that under the circumstances, the Mining Department was not entitled to recover any money for the leased area upto me period the lease was cancelled. Thus, the Honourable Courts have held that if the petitioner could not operate the area held under mining lease because the lessee did not have physical possession over the lease area, despite the lease being executed, and in case where the lessee has ceased to have legal rights (i.e., termination of the lease and rejection of application for renewal of mining lease) which may be restored subsequently by the competent authority, dead rent shall not be payable for such periods when the lessee has no possession (physical or legal as the case may be) over the leased areas. The above are brought to the notice of the all concerned. Yours Faithfully Director Thus, as can be seen from the above circular instructions, the Ministry of Steel & Mines, Department of Mines, having regard to the judgments of various High Courts, has observed that in the circumstances mentioned therein the Mining Department was not entitled to recover any money for the leased area when the petitioner could not operate the area held under mining lease because the lessee did not have physical possession over the lease area, despite the lease being executed, and in case where the lessee has ceased to have legal rights (i.e., termination of the lease and rejection of application for renewal of mining lease) which may be restored subsequently by the competent authority, dead rent shall not be payable for such periods when the lessee has no possession (physical or legal as the case may be) over the leased areas. The respondents in their counter did not dispute the aforesaid circular instructions, but only contended that the said circular does not apply to the present case. The respondents in their counter did not dispute the aforesaid circular instructions, but only contended that the said circular does not apply to the present case. On the face of the clarification issued in the said circular, the contention of the respondents cannot be countenanced. The clarification is to the effect that when the lessee was not in possession of the leasehold premises either physical or legal, he is not liable to pay dead rent. In view of the said circular instructions also, the petitioner in the instant case is not liable to pay dead rent for the period from 08.06.2018 to 09.11.2020. 11. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and held that the revisional order in Memo No. 6857/M.1(2)/2018-2 dated 09.11.2020 shall be construed to the effect that the petitioner is not liable to pay dead rent for the period from 08.06.2018 to 09.11.2020, however, he is liable to pay dead rent for the remaining period during the currency of lease. No costs. 12. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.