LexLABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, PALIKUR, KURNOOL DISTT. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY versus DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, PALIKUR, B KURNOOL DISTT. REP. BY ITS SECRElfARY v. DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 [S. RANGANATHAN, V. RAMASWAMI AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] C Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules. 1966: Section 12(4) and 13(2)-Minor Minerals-Lease-Grant/renewal of- Consideration of applications-<Jiving of preference-Procedure to be fol- lowed. D The Word "within" appearing in S.12(4) inappropriate-Deletion of the Word-Suggested. An extent of 40 acres or land containing lime stone slabs was leased out to the father or the fourth Respondent. He applied for renewal of the E lease 90 days before the expiry of the lease, as contemplated under Rule 13(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. HoweYel', he withdrew his application later. His son made an application for grant or lease in respect or 18 acres out or the total extent'of 40 acres, Later the appellant Society applied for lease in respect of the entire extent of 40 acres. Both the applications remained pending till the expiry of 90 F days from filing and were deemed to have been rejected as per Rules. Both the applicants filed revision petitions before the Government which al- lowed the applications and remitted the matter to the Deputy Director for dtsposal. In the meantime the fifth Respondent Society also applied for lease in respect of the entire extent or 40 acres. G 'The Deputy Director passed orders granting lease in respect of 18 acres in favour of the fourth Respondent, viz. the son of the previous lease and the remaining 22 acres in favour of the fifth Respondent Society, and rejected the application of the appellant. An appeal to government having failed, the appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. A Single H Judge held that the grant of lease in favour of the fourth Respondent was 802 CO-OP.SOCIETY. v. DIRECTOR 803 valid but the rejection of appellant's application was Illegal. The lease In A favour of fifth Respondent was set aside and the Deputy Director was directed to reconsider the applications of the appellant and the fifth RespondenL The appellant preferred an appeal under cl. 15 of the Letters PatenL The fifth Respondent filed Cross objections. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal and allowed the Cross-objections. The appellant B preferred the present appeal by special leave. On behalf or the appellant, It was contended that if the application or the appellant filed within 30 days of expiry or the lease was considered belated, the application of the fifth respondent which were filed long after the expiry or the lease were also barred by limitation and could not have C been considered. It was also contended that the application of the fourth respondent could not have been treated as filed within time. Dismissing the appeal, this Court enunciated the scheme of the Rules and, HELD: 1. The authorities were not right in rejecting the appellant's application as barred by time. This Court does not propose to send back the matter to the authorities in view or the time that bas elapsed since the grant in favour of Respondent No.S. The term of the lease is five years only. A mltjor portion or that term is already over. The Division Bench bas rightly pointed out that among the appellant and the fifth respondent the latter is entitled to preference for more than one reason viz., the fifth respondent society is composed of memhers ofVadde Community who are the traditional stone-<!utters. Though they do not belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, they are at the lowest rung among the back- ward classes, whereas the petitioner society is composed or mere labourers who do not necessarily belong to the traditional stone-<!ulter community. [809-H; 810 A-BJ D E F 2. The existing lessee bad indeed applied for renewal ninety days before the expiry or his lease. But before It could be granted or rejected it G was withdrawn on 17.7.87, which means that the field was now clear for considering the second category applications I.e., those received in terms of Rule 12(4). The grant of the fourth respondents application is, therefore, perfectly In order since it was received prior to 30 days before the expiry or the lease. However, it was only for 18 acres. 22 acres still remained, In respect of which the third category applications had to be consid•red. The H 804 SUPREME COUR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.