JUDGMENT / ORDER : This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief : "..... to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the respondents in not transferring of mining lease to the petitioner duly paying the transfer of Mining lease application fee of Rs.2,500/- vide Ch.No.5219, dated 29.01.2004 of STO, Nellore for Mica, Quartz, Feldspar, and Vermiculite over an extent of Acs.26.60 cents in Sy.Nos.181 and 182 of Inkurthy Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, basing on Memo No.47126/R3-1/2010, dated 07.12.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent and Letter No.5069/M2/90, dated 04.03.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to transfer of mining lease on the name of the petitioner duly paying the transfer of Mining lease application fee of Rs.2,500/- vide Ch.No.5219, dated 29.01.2004 of STO, Nellore for Mica, Quartz, Feldspar and Vermiculite over an extent of Acs.26.60 cents in Sy.Nos.181 and 182 of Inkurthy Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District basing on Memo No.47126/R3-1/2010, dated 07.12.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent and Letter No.5069/M2/90, dated 04.03.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent...." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner intends to take Mining Lease in respect of Survey Nos.181 and 182 to an extent of Acs.26.60 cents situated at Inukurthi Village, Podalakur Mandal, Nellore District by way of transfer from Mr. S.V. Maheedar Reddy (for short "the lease holder"), S/o. Venkata Krishna Reddy in favour of the petitioner, after giving an amount of Rs.20,000/- as consideration towards previous development charges of said Mica Mine. The lease holder has executed a letter on the non-judicial stamps paper to the then Secretary, Industries and Commerce (Mines-II) Department, Hyderabad on 28.07.2023 for transfer of mining lease to the petitioner duly paying the transfer of Mining lease application fee of Rs.2,500/- vide Ch.No.5219, dated 29.01.2004 of STO, Nellore, for Mica, Quartz, Feldspar and Vermiculite over an extent of Acs.26.60 cents in Survey Nos.181 and 182 of Inkurthy Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. While so, the 2nd respondent passed a Memo No.47126/R3-1/2010, dated 07.12.2010 stating that Mines and Mineral Lease for Mica, Quartz, Feldspar and Vermiculite over the subject land held by Mr. S.V. Maheedar Reddy to transfer in favour of the petitioner and stated that the lease holder is requested to re-submit the transfer proposals after obtaining the valid approved Mining Plan from the lessee. The lease holder requested for transfer of Mining Lease held by him over the subject area in favour of the petitioner, as he was unable to perform the Mining operations. But the respondents have not considered the transfer of the Mining lease application so far. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The 3rd respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all the allegations made in the petition. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the Government vide G.O. Ms. No.697 of Industries and Commerce (M.I) Department, dated 28.07.1976 have granted a Mining Lease for Mica over an extent of Acs.26.60 cents in Survey Nos.181 and 182 of Inkurthy Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, for a period of 20 years in favour of Mr. S.V. Maheender Reddy and the same was executed vide Proceedings No.5069/M1/90, dated 09.07.1992 of the 3rd respondent for a period of 20 years i.e., from 09.07.1992 to 08.07.2012. The Government vide G.O. Ms. No.220, Industries and Commerce (Mines-I) Department, dated 08.08.2006 have accorded permission for inclusion of Quartz, Feldspar and Vermiculite as additional minerals in addition to the Mica for the said area of Mining Lease. The lease holder vide letter dated 29.01.2024 has applied for transfer of Mining Lease held by him over the subject area in favour of the petitioner duly paying application fee for transfer of Mining Lease Rs.2,500/- vide Challan No.5219, dated 29.01.2004 of S.T.O. Nellore alongwith the requisite affidavits as required under the then Rule 347 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Hence, the 3rd respondent vide Letter No.5069/M2/90, dated 21.03.2009 submitted the proposals to the 2nd respondent to consider the transfer of the Mining lease area in favour of the petitioner for the un-expired portion of the lease period upto 08.07.2012. But the 2nd respondent vide Memo No.471261/R3-1/2010, dated 07.12.2010 requested the 3rd respondent to re-submit the transfer proposals after obtaining the valid approved mining plan from the lease holder. But the 2nd respondent vide Memo No.471261/R3-1/2010, dated 07.12.2010 requested the 3rd respondent to re-submit the transfer proposals after obtaining the valid approved mining plan from the lease holder. But as on date, the lease holder does not submitted the approved mining plan to the subject area mining lease. As per the amended Section 10(A) of the Mines and Minerals (Department and Regulation) Act, 1957, all the Mineral Concession applications received prior to the date of Commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Department and Regulation) Act, 2015 shall become ineligible. As such the transfer of mining lease application dated 29.01.2004 is not tenable under law. 4. The petitioner filed reply affidavit and mainly contended that Section 10(A) has been inserted in the Principal Act by way of Amendment issued in amending Act 10 of 2015 and it has introduced Section 10(A) which prescribes all applications received prior to the date of commencement of amending Act shall become ineligible w.e.f. 12.01.2015. Hence, there cannot be any legal objection by transferring the Mining Lease under Rule 37 of the Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1960. 5. Heard Mr. A. Srihari Virat, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 6. On hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the petitioner is local resident of Mudigedu Village and interested to take Mining Lease in the subject area and the transfer of Mining Lease may be considered subject to the satisfaction of the terms and conditions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and APMC Rules, 1960. He further submits that it is a mandatory duty of the respondent to transfer the mining lease to the petitioner. He further submits that the lease holder filed the 1st renewal lease application on 06.07.2011, i.e., within the stipulated period as per the then Rule 24 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Thereby the lease period of subject mining lease area is deemed to continue as per the then Rule 24-B(6) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Therefore, learned Counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the mining lease application. 7. Thereby the lease period of subject mining lease area is deemed to continue as per the then Rule 24-B(6) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Therefore, learned Counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the mining lease application. 7. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed for grant of any relief in this writ petition and submits that the 2nd respondent has directed the 3rd respondent to re-submit the transfer proposals after obtaining the valid approved mining plan from the lease holder. But the lease holder has not submitted the approved mining plan to the subject area. Hence, they cannot consider the application for transfer of Mining Lease. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Perused the material on record. 9. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the lease holder executed an affidavit on the non-judicial stamps papers on 28.07.2003 by stating as follows : "(1) I am holding a Mining lease for Mica in S.Nos.181 and 182 of Inukurthy Village, Podalakur Mandal, Nellore District for an extent of Acs.26.60 cents granted under G.O. Ms. No.697 Industries and Commerce and Power (M-IV) Department, dated 28.07.1976 and lease deed was executed on 09.07.1992 for a period of 20 years from 09.07.1992 to 08.07.2012. (2) I am also having another lease in Sy.Nos.153/13, 14, 15, 153/7, 10, 14, 15 to 21 and 130/P, 142, 143-A and 153/11 for an extent of Acs.15.85 cents as per the G.O. Ms. No.33, Industries and Commerce (MIV) Department dated 09.01.1990 and a supplementary Mining lease deed was executed on 12.04.1990 which expires on 07.09.2003. (3) This affidavit is given for transfer in respect of the first Lease mentioned about (Hanuman MICA Mine) in favour of Mr. Pedamallu Srinivasula Reddy would directly undertake mining operations." 10. It is pertinent to mention here that, as per Section 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, reads as follows: 37. (3) This affidavit is given for transfer in respect of the first Lease mentioned about (Hanuman MICA Mine) in favour of Mr. Pedamallu Srinivasula Reddy would directly undertake mining operations." 10. It is pertinent to mention here that, as per Section 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, reads as follows: 37. Transfer of lease.-(1) The lessee shall not, without the previous consent in writing of the State Government [and in the case of mining lease in respect of any mineral specified in] [Inserted by G.S.R.129(E), dated 20.02.1991.] [Part A and Part B of] [Inserted by G.S.R.56(E), dated 17.01.2000 (w.e.f. 18.01.2000).] [the First Schedule to the Act, without the previous approval of the Central Government,] [Inserted by G.S.R.129(E), dated 20.02.1991.] (a) assign, sublet, mortgage, or in any other manner, transfer the mining lease, or any right, title or interest therein, or (b) enter into or make any [bona fide] [Inserted by G.S.R.56(E), dated 17.01.2000] arrangement, contract or understanding whereby the lessee will or may be directly or indirectly financed to a substantial extent by, or under which the lessee's operations or undertakings will or may be substantially controlled by, any person or body of persons other than the lessee : 11. Further, it is also to be noted that, as per Section 12 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, reads as follows: 12. Further, it is also to be noted that, as per Section 12 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, reads as follows: 12. Refusal of application for a prospecting license.-(1) [The State Government may,] [Substituted by G.S.R.1243, dated 18.07.1963] [after giving an opportunity of being heard and] [Inserted by G.S.R.734, dated 02.05.1979] [for reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant, refuse to grant or renew a prospecting license over the whole or part of the area applied for.] [Substituted by G.S.R.1243, dated 18.07.1963] [(1-A) An application for the grant or renewal of a prospecting license made under Rule 9 shall not be refused by the State Government only on the ground that Form-B or Form-E, as the case may be, is not complete in all material particulars, or is not accompanied by the documents referred to in] [Inserted by G.S.R.734, dated 02.05.1979.] [Clauses (d), (e), (f) and (g) of sub-rule (2)] [Substituted by G.S.R.449(E), dated 13.04.1988.] [of the said rule.] [Inserted by G.S.R.734, dated 02.05.1979.] [(1-B) Where it appears that the application is not complete in all material particulars or is not accompanied by the required documents, the State Government shall, by notice, require the applicant to supply the omission or, as the case may be, furnish the documents without delay and in any case not later than thirty days from the date of receipt of the said notice by the applicant.] [Inserted by G.S.R.734, dated 02.05.1979.] (2) An application for the grant of a prospecting license shall not be refused on the ground only that, in the opinion of the State Government, a mining lease should be granted for the area for which the application for a prospecting license has been made: Provided that where applications for the grant of prospecting license and applications for the grant of mining lease in respect of the same area are received on the same date or on different dates within a period of thirty days, the applications for the grant of mining lease shall, if the area was previously held and worked under a mining lease, be disposed of before the application for the grant of prospecting license are considered : 12. Upon perusing the material on record and on hearing the submissions of both the learned Counsels, it is observed that, it is an admitted fact that the lease holder vide letter dated 29.01.2024 has applied for transfer of Mining Lease held by him over the subject area in favour of the petitioner duly paying application fee for transfer of Mining Lease of Rs.2,500/-, vide challan, dated 29.01.2004 of S.T.O. Nellore alongwith the requisite affidavits as required under the then Rule 37 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Later, the 3rd respondent vide letter, dated 21.03.2009 submitted the proposals to the 2nd respondent to consider the transfer of the Mining lease area in favour of the petitioner for the un-expired portion of the lease period upto 08.07.2012. It is also observed that, the 2nd respondent requested the 3rd respondent to re-submit the transfer proposals after obtaining the valid approved mining plan from the lease holder. But, as the lease holder did not submitted the approved mining plan to the subject area mining lease, therefore, as stated by learned Counsel for the respondents that, as per the amended Section 10(A) of the Mines and Minerals (Department and Regulation) Act, 1957, all the Mineral Concession applications received prior to the date of Commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Department and Regulation) Act, 2015 shall become ineligible. In view of the above reasons, the transfer of mining lease application dated 29.01.2004 is not at all tenable under law. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court found no merit in the instant writ petition, devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.