- Indian Express dated 17-03-1993

EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE

HYDERABAD – Has the Andhra Pradesh Government violated the stipulations laid down by the Centre in granting mining lease in a notified reserve forest area to a company owned by a former Congress-I legislator in East Godavari district?

This question put the State Government in a piquant situation, with Telugu Desam Party members grilling the Mines Minister Mr Ch.Venkata Harirama Jogaiah, during question hour in the Assembly on Tuesday.

In reply to a query by S.Venkateswar Rao and others of the TDP Mr.Jogaiah said that the mining lease was granted to M/s Adivasi Minerals owned by former Congress-I legislator Ratnabai in Tadepalli village in East Godavari district.

Joint inspection ordered: A joint inspection by the revenue and forest officials had been ordered to verify whether the mining area was situated in the notified forest. The minister, however, maintained that the lease was given during Feb. 1992 based on the district collector’s report that the land was classified as unassessed wasteland.

Dissatisfied with the minister’s answer, the TDP members shot question after question grilling Mr.Jogaiah for more than 40 minutes. The TDP members asserted that Tadepalli village was notified as a reserve forest by the Centre and any mining operation in the forest area was banned.

Supported by the CPI and BJP members, Telugu Desam deputy leader K.Vidyadhar Rao demanded that the government institute a probe by a House committee. But, the mines minister firmly rejected the demand stating that he would initiate action based on the report of the joint inspection team.

CM to minister’s rescue: As the opposition continued to grill Mr.Jogaiah, Chief Minister K.Vijayabhaskar Reddy intervened to point out that the minister had already assured the House that the mining operations would be stopped immediately pending the report of the joint inspection team. Stern action would be initiatd against the officials who recommended granting of the lease.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE : ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
26-03-1993
PRESENT: : THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASHAN REDDY
W.P.M.P. NO.4786/1993

Between:

SAKTI a voluntary social organisation

Vs.

1. State of A.P.rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt. Energy, Forests, Environments, Science and Technology (Forests-III) Dept. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad
2. The Director of Mines and Geology, Govt. of A.P., SRK.Rao Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabada
3. The District Collector, E.G.District, Kakinada
4. The District Forest Officer, Kakinada
5. Union of India, rep.by its Secretary Govt., Ministry of Environment and Forests, Paryavaran Bhavan, C.C.O.Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
6. M/s.Hyderabad Abrasives Ltd.A-10, Express Apartments, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad
7. Proprietor, Adivasi Integrated Corpn, Kantipudivari Street, Krishnapuram , Rajahmundry.
8. Sangam Minerals, Kantipudivari street, Krishnapuram, Rajahmundry, rep.by its Proprieto Sri E.Satya Rao
9. Girijan Minerals, Rampachodavaram - 533 288, rep.by its Properitrix Smt. T.Ratnabai
10. Smt.Suryakantam, D.No.18-20 Prakashnagar, Rajahmundry.

Interim Order:

This ordered that notice do issue to the Respondents here in to show cause why this application should not be complied with and THAT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondnts herein be and hereby are directed to stop the mining operations in the scheduled areas of East Godavari District forthwith subject to the condition that the area covered by mining lease fall within the forest area, pending furher orders on this petition.

- The Hindu Saturday August 28 1993

From Our Correspondent

HYDERABAD. Aug.27 : A Division Bench of the High Court, consisting of Mr. Justice P. Sivaraman Nair and Ms. Justice S.V. Maruthi, on Friday allowed a public-interest writ petition setting aside mining leases granted by the State Government in scheduled areas in the State.

Sakti, a voluntary organisation at Rampachodavarm in East Godavari district had in its writ petition contended that the mining leases were given in violation of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations

- The Hindu, August 28-1993

Hyderabad, July 20. Mr.Justice Immaneni Panduranga Rao of the A.P.High Court has stayed until further orders all the mining operations in the limits of Burra Gram Panchayat in Vizag district.

The judge on Friday, admitted a public interest writ petition filed by "Samatha," a voluntary organisation. The petitioner maintained tht the mining leases were granted in favour of five companies violating the provisions of th e Forest Conservation Act as the lands are in the reserve forest area. The petitioner alleged that the mining operations endngered the famous Burra caves. - Our legal Correspondent.

- by K.Lakshmi Narasimha, Advocate, High Court of A.P.,
ALTR Publications - 1996

Constitution of India, Article 244 (1), V Schedule, Para 5(1) and 5(2) - Governor is empowered to issue notifications and to promulgate regulations for peace and good Government in a scheduled area. Samatha, A Rural Development Society rep. by Its Executive Director, R. Ravi vs. State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary to Gout, Energy, Forests, Environment Science & Technology (Forests-El) Department, Hyderabad and others; 1995 (2) ALT 233 (D.B.).

A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (Regulation I of 1959). Section 3 - Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Act No.67 of 1957), Section 11(5) as amended -Under the Regulation, Government had power to lease out lands In agency areas to non-tribals also for mining operations till amendment made to Sec. 11 (5) of Act No.67 of 1957 -By amendment, power of Government to grant leases to non-tribals In agency areas is prohibited.

Held: There is no provision either In Regulation I of 1959 or the Act No. 67 of 1957 prohibiting grant of leases in the lands in agency area for the purpose of mining operations, until Sec. 11 (5) of the Act No. 67 of 1957 was amended by a notification Issued by Governor prohibiting grant of leases to non-tribals in agency areas.

Regulation I of 1959 and the Act No.67 of 1957 have not prohibited transfer of a lease by Government In the agency or scheduled area. A 'person' cannot mean to include the Government' so as to read that the Government is prohibited from transferring the lands to non-tribals. The Governor of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification on 7-8-1991 In exercise of his powers under Para 5(1) of V Schedule to the Constitution directing that the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 shall apply to the Scheduled areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh subject to the modification, by inserting Sec. 11 (5), that no prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted in the Scheduled areas to any person who is not member of the Scheduled Tribe. Sec. 11 (5) was provided to be not applicable in respect of an undertaking owned or controlled by the State or Central Government or to a Society registered under the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 which is composed solely of members of Scheduled Tribes. Because there is no prohibition for grant of leases by the Government, the Governor Issued the notification to protect the interest of tribals prohibiting grant of such leases to non-tribals in agency areas. Samatha, A Rural Development Society rep. by its Executive Director, R. Ravi vs. State of A.P. rep. By its Principal Secretary to Govt., Energy, Forests, Environment Science & Technology (Forests-m) Department, Hyderabad and others; 1995(2)ALT233(D.B.).

A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, (Regulation I of 1959) - Regulation I of 1970 - Section 3(1) - Word 'person' not defined in the Regulation -Word 'person' used in Section 3(1) does not include Government - For arriving at the said decision literal meaning of 'person', provisions of Section 3(2)(b), legislative history of the Regulation, Section 3(1) prior to amendmentand after amendment by Regulation I of 1970, General Clauses Act and Section 2(43) of the Hyderabad General Clauses Act were considered.

Held: By reading sub-clause 2 of Section 3, It is evident that the State is the controlling authority which can take possession of the land from a non-tribal where the transfer is In violation of Sec. 3 and restore back to the original transferor or his heirs. If they are not available, the Government can assign the same to a member of Schedule Tribe or to a Society which consists of members of Scheduled Tribe or otherwise it can dispose it of. That means the State Is empowered to administer the entire land for the peace and good governance of the scheduled areas. For effectively implementing the Regulation, it restores the lands to the displaced tribals. Therefore, If the Government is also read to M Include In the definition of 'a person', It leads to absurdity.

Section 3(1) of Regulation I of 1959, prior to amendment, states transfer of Immovable property In agency area by a tribal to non-tribal only. When the authorities felt difficulty in effectively Implementing the regulation, restore the land to the displaced tribals and in tracing the origin of the non-tribals included In the Tribal areas, an amendment was brought by way of Regulation I of 1970. Section 3(1) of Regulation I of 1959 after amendment through Regulation I of 1970, prohibition was imposed on transferring lands In agency areas by a non-tribal to non-tribal also. After the said amendment, a person whether he is a Scheduled Tribe or not is prohibited from transferring the land in agency area to non-tribal. In Sec. 3(1) of Regulation I of 1959, prior to amendment by Regulation I of 1970, there was prohibition of transfer by a tribal to non-tribal. There Is no provision in Regulation I of 1959 prohibiting transfer of land by Government to tribal or non-tribal. By reading the legislative history, it is evident that there Is no prohibition Imposed by the Regulation on the Government In transferring or leasing out the land to non-tribals or tribals. Thus, legislative history also supports the view that the person does not include the Government.

By reading the definition provided in the A.P. General Clauses Act, it is not possible to read the Government as 'person' as the same is not provided under the Act. The definition of the A.P. General Clauses Act does not include the Government in 'person' and further the provisions of the A.P. General Clauses Act are also applicable to the regulation made by the Governor under para 5 of V Schedule to the Constitution. Unless a statute specifically provides it cannot be read to include the Government as 'a person'. The expression 'person' includes natural person or artificial person like corporation and joint stock company, but it does not include a State or Government. In the present case, though there is no specific exclusion of the Government from the definition of a person in Regulation I of 1959 by tracing the legislative history of the Regulation as well as scrutinising the literal meaning of the word 'person'., it vividly appears that the Government is impliedly excluded from the definition of 'a person'.Samatha, A Rural Development Society rep. by its Executive Director, R. Ravi vs. State of A.P. rep. by Its Principal Secretary to Govt, Energy, Forests, Environment Science & Technology (Forests-Ill) Department, Hyderabad and others; 1995 (2) ALT 233 (D.B.).

Interpretation of Statutes - Interpretation of words, phrases or provisions of statute - Principles of Law - Stated.

Held: Every clause of a statute should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses of the Act, as far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute or series of statutes relating to the subject matter. o

When meaning of a word or phase of the statute is not defined, one way to find out the meaning is to look into the dictionary.

To understand the meaning of a word used in statute, which has not been defined, the provision should be read in the context of the scheme of other relevant provisions in the Act or the Rules. Statute should be construed after ascertaining legislative intent and in the context and scheme of the Act.

For interpretation of a word or phrase in a statute or the statute itself, and to find out correct meaning of a word or phrase, it is relevant to consider the historical background of the statute. Another way of understanding the meaning of the word or phrase of a provision in a statute, which was not defined in the Act, is to look into the General Clauses Act. A statute must be read to find out whether there is any express exclusion or implied exclusion. Samatha, Arural Development Society rep. By its Executive Director, R.Ravivs. State of A.P. rep. by (its Principal Secretary to Gout, Energy, Forests, Environment Science & Technology (Forests-El) Department, Hyderabad and others; 1995 (2) ALT 233 (D.B.).

Precedent - Binding precedent - Any decision of Court not based on reasons not a binding ratio decidendi and therefore per incuriam - Ratio of a decision In a previous case Is binding on the Court in a subsequent case and not the conclusion arrived at therein.

Held- Before the Dlvlslonbench In the earlier case W.P. No.3734 of 1993, the legislative history of the Regulation I of 1959 nor the entire provisions of the Regulation or at least the entire sub- clauses of Section 3 of the Regulation were brought to the notice of the Court nor any judgment concerning the interpretation of the principles of the statutes were brought and also the definition of person under the General Clauses Act was brought to the notice of the Court. In those circumstances the Division Bench held that the 'person' includes the Government

Therefore the finding or observation of the Court in that case cannot be said as ratio decidendi which will be binding on the subsequent cases. It is elementary that what is binding on the Court in a subsequent case is not the conclusion arrived at in a previous decision but the ratio of that decision, for it is the ratio which binds as a precedent and not the conclusion.

Section 23(b) and Section 3(22) of the A.P. General C lauses Act, the contextual interpretation of Section 3 and the sub-clauses thereof of Regulation I of 1959, literal meaning of the term 'person' and the subsequent notification issued by the Governor in exercise of his powers under para 5 (1) of V Schedule to the constitution were not brought be fore the Division Bench of this court while decidingthe case in W.P.No. 3734/1993 nor the previous decisions on the point to interpret the definition 'person'. Therefore, the decision has to be held to be not based on reasons. Hence, the decision in the above judgment, including the Government under the definition of 'a person' is not a binding ratio decidendi and it Is .per incuriam.

Division Bench Judgment in W.P.3734/1993 of A.P. High Court dated 27-8-1993 - per incuriam.

Samatha, A Rural Development Society rep. by its Executive Director, R. Ravi vs. State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary to Gout., Energy, Forests, Environment Science & Technology ( Forests-Ill) Department, Hyderabad and others; 1995 (2) ALT 233 (D.B.).

A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959* (Regulation I of 1959), Section 3 - Interpretation of the Statute - Specific exclusion of State-Implied exclusion of State in the Regulation - It cannot be concluded that 'person' Includes Government on the ground that there is no express exclusion of State In the Regulation - Implied exclusion of Government can be inferred from provisions of the Regulation. Samatha, A Rural Development Society rep. by its Executive Director, R. Ravi vs. State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt, Energy, Forests, Environment Science & Technology (Forests-Ill) Department, Hyderabad and others: 1995 (2) ALT 233 (D.B.I

Principles of Law - Courts need not decide Constitutional questions raised where it is not necessary to decide them in deciding a case Samatha, A Rural Development Society n >p. by Its Executive Director, R. Ravi vs. State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary to Gout, Energy, Forests, Environment Science & Technology (Forests-R>') Department, Hyderabad and others; 1995 (2) ALT 233 (D.B.).

Section 2 of Fore«t (Conservation) Act, 1980, - Grant of mining leases - Consent of Central Government not necessary unless the land leased out for mining purposes includes reserve forest area.

Held: There is nothing on record to show about the illegal occupations in the reserve forest area. When there is no specific material before this Court showing that there is any Inclusion of lessees in the reserve forest area or the lease granted to the lessees is part and parcel of the reserve forest area, the question of contravention of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act does not arise. Further, in these cases the leases were granted long back and they are operating. Where the land is already broken in pursuance of a lease, the consent of the Central Governments provided under Section 2 of the forest (Conservation) Act is not required. If there is any ingress or encroachment on the reserved forest, /.is open to the petitioner to file such a petition before the concerned authorities seeking necessary relief. On filing such petition, the authorities concerned will examine the same and pass appropriate orders keeping in view the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act. Samatha, A Rural Development Society rep. by Its Executive Director, R. Rout us. State oj'A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt, Energy, Forests, Environment, Science & Technology (Forests-UI) Department, Hyderabad and others; 19.95 (2) ALT 233 (D.B.).

Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, Section 15-G.O. Ms. No. 152dated 28-6-1993 -Certain lands in the area in which mining leases were granted to respondents are declared as reserve forest by the said G.O. - G.O. will not hit leases already granted-It has no retrospective effect. Samatha, A Rural Development Society rep. by tts Executive Director, R. Raul us. State oJA.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary to Gout., Energy, Forests, Environment Science & Technology ( Forests-Ill) Department, Hyderabad and others; 1995 (2) ALT 233 (D.B.).

A.P, Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 19 59 (Regulation 1 of 1G 59), Section 3 - Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Act No.67 of 1957), Section 11(5)- No prohibition for grant of mining leases by Government in favour of non-tribals either under the Regulation or under the Act until the issuance of notification by Governor on 7-8-1991 under para 5(1) of V Schedule to the Constitution prohibiting Government to grant leases to non-tribals-Restriction not imposed retrospectively-Leas es granted earlier to the notification therefore valid.

Held: There is no prohibition for grant of mining leases by the Government either under Regulation I of 1959 or the Act No. 67 of 1 957 until the issuance of the notification by the Governor on 7-8-1991. The said notification does not direct imposition of restriction retrospectively, though the V Schedule of the Constitution empowers the Governor to direct regulations to have retrospective effect. Therefore, in the absence of any retrospective effect of the notification issued by the Governor on 7-8-1991, the notification comes into effect prospectively. There is therefore no force in the con lention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the leases granted earlie r to the notification also have to be declared as void Samatha, A Rural Development Society rep. by its Executive Director, R. Ravi vs. State of A.P. rep. by Its Principal Secretary to Gout., Energy, Forests, Environment Science & Technology ( Forests-IE) Department, Hyderabad and others; 1995 (2) ALT 233 (D.B.}.

(1997) 8 Supreme Court cases 191

Samata ... Appellant
Vs.
State of A.P.and others ... Respondent

Hyderabad Abrasives & Minerals (P) . ... Appellant
Vs
State of A.P.and Others ... Respondent

Para: 3. In the appeal arising from SLP © No.21457 of 1993 filed by Hyderabad Abrasives and Minerals, another Division Bench, earlier had taken diametrically the opposite view and held that mining leases are illegal. The word ‘Person’ used in Section 3 of the Regulation includes Government. Any lease to the non-tribals even of government land situated in a Scheduled Area is in violation of Section 3 and so is void. Equally, it held that a mining lease in a forest area for non-forest purpose or renewal thereof, without prior approval of the Central Government, is in violation of Section 2 of the FC Act. Accordingly, the Division Bench directed the Government to prohibit mining operations in Scheduled Area except that the mines stacked on the surface be permitted to be removed after obtaining proper permits. This decision, though earlier in point of time, was not brought to the notice of the latter Bench mentioned above.

Para: 7. M/s SAKTI, the voluntary organisation filed the writ petition in the High Court questioning the power of the Government to grant mining leases in violation of Section 3 of the Regulation and the FC act. The lease expired in 1994. The Division Bench held that by operation of the prohibition contained in Section 3 of the Regulation and Section 2 of the FC Act, the appellant is not entitled to mining operations.

Para: 237. SAKTI, a voluntary social organisation for the upliftment of tribals in East Godavari District filed the writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court praying therein that the mining activities which are carried on by Respondents 6 t 10 in the said writ petition should be immediately stopped as the grant of mining leases in their favour is in contravention of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Regulation") as well as Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

Para 240: The High Court came to the conclusion that the word "person" in Section 3 of the Regulation includes the Government and therefore, leases granted by the State Government in a Scheduled Area to a non-tribal are void. On the question of applicability of the Conservation Act the High Court also relied upon the decision of this Court in Banshi Ram case and came to the conclusion that for grant of mining lease in a protected forest area for non-tribal purpose the prior approval of the Central Government is mandatory and since the Government did not obtain the approval of the Central Government, leases are in contravention of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

116. It is seen that in one case, the transfer was claimed to have been made in favour of the State instrumentalities, i.e., A.P.S.M.D. Corporation Ltd., It has already been held that transfer of the government land in favour of its instrumentalities, in the eye of law, is not a transfer but one of entrustment of its property for public purpose. Since, admittedly, a public corporation acts in public interest and not for private gain, such transfer stands excluded from the prohibition under para 5(2)(b) of the Fifth Schedule and Section 3(1)(a) of the Regulation. Such transfer or lease, therefore, stands upheld. But a transfer of mining leases to non-tribal natural persons or company, corporation aggregate or partnership firm etc. is unconstitutional, void and inoperative.

In the absence of any total prohibition, undoubtedly Article 298 empowers the Governor being the head of the Executive to sanction transfer of its lands. Since the Executive is enjoined to protect social, economic and educational interests of the tribals and when the State leases out the lands in the Scheduled Areas to the non-tribals for exploitation of mineral resources, it transmits the correlative above constitutional duties and obligation to those who undertake to exploit the natural resources should also improve social, economic and educational empowerment of the tribals. As a part of the administration of the project, the license or lessee should incur the expenditure for:

reforestation and maintenance of ecology in the Scheduled Areas;

maintenance of roads and communication facilities in the Scheduled Areas where operation of the industry has the impact;

supply of potable water to the tribals;

establishment of schools for imparting free education at primary and secondary level and providing vocational training to the tribals to enable them to be qualified, competent and confident in pursuit of employment;

providing employment to the tribals according to their qualifications in their establishment/factory;

establishment of hospitals and camps for providing free medical aid and treatment to the tribals in the Scheduled Areas;

maintenance of sanitation;

construction of houses for tribals in the Scheduled Areas as enclosures.

The expenditure for the above projects should be part of his/its Annual Budget of the industry establishment or business avocation/venture.

In this behalf, at least 20 per cent of the net profits should be set apart as permanent fund as a part of industrial/business activity for establishment and maintenance of water resources, schools, hospitals, sanitation and transport facilities by laying roads etc., This 20% allocation would not include the expenditure for reforestation and maintenance of ecology. It is needless to mention that necessary sanction for exemption of the said amount from income tax liability, may be obtained; and the Centre should ensure grant of such exemption and see that these activities are undertaken, carried on and maintained systematically and continuously. The above obligations and duties, should be undertaken and discharged by each and every person/industry/licensee/lessee concerned so that the constitutional objectives of social, economic and human resource empowerment of the tribals could be achieved and peace and good government is achieved in Scheduled Areas.

128. In cases where similar Acts in other States do not totally prohibit grant of mining leases of the lands in the Scheduled Area, similar Committee of Secretaries and State Cabinet Sub-Committees should be constituted and decision taken thereafter.

129. Before granting leases, it would be obligatory for the State Government to obtain concurrence of the Central Government which would, for this purpose, constitute a Sub-Committee consisting of the Prime Minister of India, Union Minister for Welfare, Union Minister for Environment so that the State's policy would be consistent with the policy of the nation as a whole.

130. It would also be open to the appropriate legislature, preferably after a thorough debate/conference of all the Chief Ministers, Ministers holding the Ministry concerned and the Prime Minister and the Central Ministers concerned, to take a policy decision so as to bring about a suitable enactment in the light of the guidelines laid down above so that there would emerge a consistent scheme throughout the country, in respect of the tribal lands under which national wealth in the form of minerals, is located.

Court stalls bauxite mining 
Statutory permission stipulated to start works

Legal Correspondent 
HYDERABAD: A division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday made it clear that until clearances and permissions from the competent authorities are obtained, no activity for proposed bauxite mining in Visakhapatnam tribal area can take place. The Bench was disposing of a writ petition filed by Dr. Sivarama Krishna of SAKTI, voluntary organisation and another. The petitioner alleged that the memorandum of understanding (MoU) entered into by the State Government with the Jindal Company is illegal and unconstitutional. The Bench said that the petitioners are at liberty to come to court when there is violation of law in future and closed the writ petition making it clear that unless statutory permissions are obtained no work can take place.

Proce.No.1381/Q/93 dated: 20-9-1993

Sub:-Mines and Minerals – quarry leases for cut or dressed blocks of colour granite (other than black) over an extent of 3.55 Hect in S.No.65/2 of Madigunta village, Chintapalli mandal, Visakhapatnam district for a period of 15 yrs Execution of lease deed in favour of Sri Reddy Rajulu Proprietor M/s Gallop Granites – work orders – Issued.

Ref:- 1. Proc.No.2543/Q1/93 dt.1.9.93 from the Dy.Director of Mines & Geology,
Visakhapatnam.
2. Letter dated 20.9.93 from Sri Ch.Hanumantha Rao GPA Reddy Rajuly

ORDER:

SANCTION is hereby accorded to Sri Reddy Rajulu, Proprietor M/s Gallop Granites to work quarry lease for cut or dressed blocks of colour granite (other than black) over an extent of 3.55 Hectares in S.No.65/2 of Madigunta village, Chintapalli mandal, Visakhapatnam dist. for a period of 15 years with effect from 9.1993 to 9.2008, subject to the satisfaction of Andhra pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and fulfillment of conditions stipulated and also special conditions specified in the annexure appended to the sanction order.

The grantee should maintain all the records and accounts in the forms preseribed by the Government. The lessee should submit quarterly returns in Form-C so as to reach the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, Dy.Director of Mines & Geology and Asst.Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam not later than 7th day of quarter to which they relate. The grantee is also directed to obtain despatch permits under Rule 34 of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966 from the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Visakhapatnam before transportation of material.

Government reserves the right to cancel the quarry leases granted under Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 without assigning any reasons and giving notice.

Asst.Director of Mines & Geology, Visakhapatnam.

To
Sri Reddy Rajuly,
M/s Gallop Granites,
Door No.7-8-17, Harbor Park,
Kasturiba Marg, Visakhapatnam –17.

Copy submitted to the Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad for favour of Information.
Copy submitted to the Dy.Director of Mines & Geology, Visakhapatnam for favour of information.
Copy submitted to the Collector, Visakhapatnam for favour of information
Copy Submitted the Dist.Development Officer, Chintapalli ZPP, Visakhapatnam for information
Copy to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chintapalli for information
Copy to the Sarpanch, Madigunta village, Panchayat for information
Copy to the Labour Enforcement Officer, Central, Port Area, Vizag-35.