STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. versus M/S. ANUPAMA MINERALS ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 214 · Decided: 07-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
v. 
MIS. ANUP AMA MINERALS ETC. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
A.P. Mining Rules, 1966: Rule 31. 
Mining Lease-Renewal of-Direction by High Court-Held Man-
C damus cannot be issued in violation of mandatory provisions of Act. 
Forest Conse1Vation Act, 1980: Section 2. 
Rese1Ved forest area-Grant of lease in-Prohibition against. 
D 
The respondents were granted mining leases. Subsequent to the 
coming into force of the Forest Consenation Act, 1980 they applied for 
renewal of the leases but the State Government refused it because of the 
prohibition contained in Section 2 of the Act. The High Court directed the 
appellant to consider the renewal of the lease and seek approval of the 
Central Government under Section 2 of the Act. In this appeal the State 
E 
Govt. questioned the legality of the direction issued by the High Court. 
F 
Allowing the appeals and setting uide the order of the High Court, 
this Court 
HELD : 1. The direction issued by the Court is clearly in violation 
of the State and on mandamus or direction could be issued to violate the 
mandatory provisions of the Act. On the facts and circumstances in these 
cases specially in view of the prohibition contained in the Forest Conser-
vation Act, 1980, renewal cannot be granted after th4! Act had come into 
force. So any grant of renewal should be consistent with the provisions 
G contained in the Act. In view of the prohibition for grant of lease in the 
resened forest area, grant for renewal in the prohibited are will be in 
violation of law. Therefore, the authorities though had the power, but had 
duty while consernng the forest .to refuse to grant renewal. In that view 
the Government's refusal to grant renewal cannot be said to be illegal. If 
H they consider that renewal could be granted, even then the prior approval 
214 
STAIB v. ANUPAMAMINERALS 
215 
of the Central Government is mandatory under Section 2 of the Act. 
A 
(216-C, 215-G-H, 216-A·B] 
Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat & Ors, (1987] 1 S.C.C. 213, 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3702 to B 
3707 of 1984. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.6.82 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in W.P. Nos. 679, 691, 1668, 2063 and 2064 of 1981. 
K. Madhava Reddy and G.Prabhakar for the Appellants. 
S.V. Tambwekar (N.P.) for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted in SLP No. 1457 of 1986. 
c 
D 
The respondents were granted mining leases under Rule 31 of the 
A.P. Mining Rules, 1966. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for short 'the 
Central Act') had come into force on October 25, 1980. Subsequently in 
terms of the grant of the lease the respondents applied for renewal. The 
State Government refused to grant renewal in view of the prohibition E 
contained in Sec. 2 the Act. The respondents filed the writ petitions in the 
High Court and the Division Bench in the impugned Judgment dated June 
9, 1982 directed to consider the renewal of the respondents and seek 
approval of the Central Government iiader Sec. 2 of the Act. Calling in 
question of the legality of the directions issued by the High Court these 
appeals by Special Leave have been filed. In some of the cases the applica-
tion for renewal has been filed after the Act had come into force but on 
the question of law does not make much difference. The point raised is no 
longer res-integra. This Court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat 
F 
& Ors., [1987] 1 SCC 213, held that the public authority is vested with the 
power the expression 'may' has been construed as 'shall' because if the G 
conditions for the exercise of the power are fu1filled, it is coupled with the 
duty. When the grant of renewal was sought to be made then the authority 
has been invested with the duty to grant of renewal. On the facts and 
circumstances in these cases specially in view of the prohibition contained 
in the Act renewal cannot be granted since the Act had come into force. 
So any grant of renewal should be consistent with the provisions contained H 
216 . 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A in the Act. The purpose of the Act is Conservation of the Forest and to 
prevent the -depletion of the forest. In other words the Act intended no 
only to protect the existing forest but also conserve forest and protection 
of the exist:ipg forest in accordanee of the provisions of the Act. In view of 
t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.