ORDER
1. The petitioner was admittedly granted mining lease to excavate iron ore in S. Nos. 342/A and 343 at Sarfarajapuram village, Ganitattu Hill in Emboyee R.F., P.O. Velaurthi in Kurnool District for a period of 30 years with effect from 31-10-1953. The lease expired by 30-10-1983. The petitioner applied for renewal of the lease for a further period of 30 years, on 23-9-1982. The State Government did not take any action within a period of two months as required under Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960 (for short “the Rules”). As a result, under the deeming provisions, it must have been rejected. On that premise, the petitioner filed a revision to the Central Government. The Central Government, by an order dt. 3-11-1983, dismissed that revision on the ground that it was premature as the Rules provide an interregnum of 6 months for disposal of the petitioner’s application by the State Government. As a result, the petitioner was granted breathing time to continue the mining operations. The petitioners, therefore, filed this writ petition on 25-4-1984 and obtained interim direction on 26-4-1984 to carry on mining operations. Meanwhile, the petitioner also filed on 6-7-1984 another revision before the Central Government. As the application for renewal of lease was not either ordered or rejected by the State Government, the Central Government, by an order dt. 16-8-1984, disposed of that revision directing the State Government to dispose of the petitioner’s application for renewal of lease within a period not exceeding 200 days from the date of receipt of that order. But, the application was not disposed of.
2. The petitioner contends that the petitioner has got a statutory right of renewal of lease and that, therefore, the authorities ought to have renewed his application as a matter of course.
3. The Government have filed their counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that as the mine is situated in the Reserve Forest area, the renewal cannot be granted and that since the writ petition is pending, the application has not been rejected. Obviously, the renewal was rejected because of the pendency of the writ petition.
4. Sri S. Surya Prakasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the authorities have initially recommended that the mine is not in the Reserve Forest area, but the Forest Department now as per its counter-affidavit appears to have recommended that the mine is situated in the Reserve Forest area and that the State Government cannot have any power to reject the application but have power only to recommend to the Central Government whether it should be granted or refused by operation of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 (for short “the Act”).
5. The question is, therefore, whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered for grant of renewal of lease under the Rules.
6. The counter-affidavit discloses that the mine is situated in the Reserve Forest area. Whether renewal is to be granted or not is exclusively for the State Government to consider. In Anupama Minerals v. Union of India, , a Division Bench of this Court has held that under the Act, Section 2 makes it clear that neither the State Government nor any other authority can permit any forest land to be used for a non-forest purpose except with the prior approval of the Central Government Rule 4 of 1981 Rules provides that the State Government or other authority seeking prior approval shall send the proposal for approval to the Central Government along with the particulars specified in the pro forma given in Annexure to the 1981 Rules including the specific opinion of the Chief Conservator of Forests so as to enable the Central Government to take a proper and correct decision consistent with the object and intendment underlying the 1980 Act. It has also been held that since prior approval under Section 2 and Rule 4 has to be obtained by the State Government which requires a forest land to be used for a non-forest purpose, it is not correct to say that the Forest Department of the State Government alone is the proper authority to seek prior approval under Section 2 in the prescribed proforma and the proposal for obtaining prior approval must be sent to the Central Government through the Forest Department for approval It has been further held therein that in case the State Government finds that the mines are situated in the Reserve Forest and it cannot be granted, the State Government has got discretion either to reject it or to grant renewal and in case the State Government decide to grant renewal, then prior approval of the Central Government is a condition precedent under Section 2 of the Act.
7. A Full Bench of this Court held in G. Raghava Das v. Government of A. P., that an applicant has no vested right for renewal and it is only when the authorities are satisfied that the application is in order and is in conformity with the Act and the Rules and are of the opinion that renewal should be granted, they should seek the prior approval of the Central Government. It was also held that the State Government cannot reject the renewal of the application of the applicant without obtaining the prior approval of the Central Government.
8. In view of these settled legal position, the applicant has no vested right for grant of renewal. It is the discretion of the State Government to consider whether the renewal should be granted or not; and, the renewal should be in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. By operation of Section 2 of the Act, if the mines are situated within the Reserve Forest area, no forest land or any portion thereof may be used except with the prior approval of the Central Government. Therefore, it is for the State Government to take a decision whether renewal should be granted to the petitioner or not; and, in case the State Government decide to grant any renewal, it is then mandatory that the State Government shall obtain prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Act.
9. This case is a saga of events as to now the Act is sabotaged by obtaining the orders of the Courts. In this case, the Act has come into force in 1980; the application was made in 1982 for renewal; and, the matters were kept pending. Since the renewal was not made, the petitioner filed writ petition and obtained directions for excavation of minerals and he has been carrying on mining operations within the Reserve Forest. The State Government did not move an inch in the matter to vacate the order. Under those circumstances. I do not find any justification permitting the petitioner to continue to operate the excavation till the matter is disposed of by the State Government.
10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Advocate’s fee Rs. 350/-.