2012 (1) TMI 340 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Preliminary Objection
2. Jurisdiction of Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur
3. Binding Precedent of Previous Judgments
4. Validity of Clarificatory Memo
5. Compliance with Article 166 of the Constitution
6. Retrospective Application of Clarificatory Memo
7. Validity of Government's Direction to the Director
8. Independence of Director's Order
9. Other Contentions

Summary:

A. Preliminary Objection:

The petitioner argued that similar matters were pending before a Division Bench and requested these writ petitions be listed before the Division Bench. However, the court noted that the Chief Justice had directed these petitions to be listed before the single judge, and thus, the request was denied.

B. Jurisdiction of Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur:

The court examined whether the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur had jurisdiction u/s 9-N to permit the use of additional ramps located in Krishna District. It was concluded that the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur lacked jurisdiction to grant such permission, as the concerned Assistant Director is the one having territorial jurisdiction over the ramps, i.e., the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nandigama, Krishna District.

C. Binding Precedent of Previous Judgments:

The court analyzed whether the previous judgments in W.P. No.12239 of 2010 and WVMP. No.2639 of 2010 constituted binding precedents. It was determined that the judgment in W.P. No.12239 of 2010 did not constitute a binding precedent as it was rendered per incuriam and sub-silentio, lacking detailed reasoning and consideration of the relevant statutory provisions.

D. Validity of Clarificatory Memo:

The court held that the clarificatory memo dated 20.06.2011 issued by the Government, stating that the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology having territorial jurisdiction over the ramps is the competent authority, was not ultra vires Rule 9-K(3). The memo was deemed a valid clarification to implement the Rules.

E. Compliance with Article 166 of the Constitution:

The petitioner argued that the impugned memo did not comply with Article 166 of the Constitution and the A.P. Government Business Rules. The court found that the memo was issued after obtaining approval from the Minister for Mines & Geology and did not involve questions of policy or administrative importance requiring the Chief Minister's approval. Thus, the memo was in substantial compliance with Article 166.

F. Retrospective Application of Clarificatory Memo:

The court concluded that the clarificatory memo dated 20.06.2011 was not retrospective in operation. It did not nullify any vested rights of the Society as the permission granted by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur was declared null and void.

G. Validity of Government's Direction to the Director:

The court held that the Government's memo dated 20.06.2011, requesting the Director of Mines and Geology to consider exercising his powers u/s 11(2)(c) to regulate quarrying operations, was valid. The Director's power to regulate quarrying operations includes the authority to prevent the use of unauthorized ramps for transportation of sand.

H. Independence of Director's Order:

The court found that the Director of Mines and Geology had exercised his independent judgment and was not influenced by the Government's memo. The Director's order was detailed and reasoned, addressing the representations and issues raised.

I. Other Contentions:

The court dismissed the contention regarding the violation of the A.P. Advocate General (Duties, Leave and Remuneration) order 1961, as it lacked statutory force and could not be enforced in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion:

The court allowed W.P. No.25583 of 2010, declaring the permission granted to the Society to use the additional ramps as null and void. The other writ petitions filed by the Society were dismissed.