Mandapaka Chandra Kumari vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others

R. Subhash Reddy, J.—Both these writ petitions are filed on similar set of facts, and as common questions of law arise for consideration, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions, I refer to the facts as arise in W.P. No. 28827 of 2008.

In the writ petition, the petitioner seeks declaration by way of Mandamus, declaring the Memo No. 9375/M.II(1)/2008-l, dated 20th August 2008, issued by the 1st respondent, and the consequential order of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, dated 22nd of November 2008, issued in Proceedings No. 4115/QT/2007, rejecting the application of the petitioner, dated 19th September 2007, for grant of quarry lease over an extent of 50 Hectares in Survey No. 287 of Santhabommali village and Mandal of Srikakulam District, as illegal and arbitrary.

By the order, dated 20th of August 2008, issued in Memo No. 9375/M.II(1)/2008-l, the Government, in exercise of powers under Rule 12(3) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, has ordered for grant of quarry lease for gravel and road-metal and building stone over an extent of 48.12 acres in Survey No. 287 of Santhabommali village and Mandal of Srikakulam District, in favour of respondent No. 4, by overlooking the priority applications of the petitioner and one other applicant by name Sri I. Venkata Siva Prasad, and by the consequential proceedings, dated 22nd of November 2008, issued in Proceedings No. 4115/QIT/2007, referring to the orders of the Government, dated 20th August 2008, issued in Memo No. 9375/M.II(1)/2008-l, the application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease, is rejected.

The petitioner, an individual, has applied for grant of quarry lease for gravel and road-metal in Survey No. 287, admeasuring 50 Hectares at Santhabommali village. The application was filed on 19th of September 2007. The application was referred to the Tahsildar for his report. After conducting necessary survey, the Tahsildar concerned has issued ''No objection Certificate'', stating that land to an extent of 60 acres in the aforesaid Survey Number is vacant and is suitable for grant of quarry lease. The ''No objection Certificate'' was issued by the Tahsildar by proceedings in Rc. No. 336/2007/A, dated 3rd of April 2008, and the same is addressed to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology.

At that stage, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology has recommended for overlooking the application of petitioner for grant of quarry lease, and also granted temporary permit to respondent No. 4 for gravel, vide Memo No. 16014/R1-1/2008, dated 12th May 2008. At that stage, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 11299 of 2008, alleging that temporary permits were being issued to respondent No. 4, without considering her application. The writ petition in W.P. No. 11299 of 2008 was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the application filed by the petitioner. As against the same, a writ appeal was preferred and there was an interim order in the said writ appeal, stopping the quarrying, pursuant to grant of temporary permits. At that stage, based on the recommendations of the Government, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, while considering the various applications, has ordered for grant of quarry lease in favour of respondent No. 4 by overlooking the application of the petitioner and other applicant.

In the writ petition, the orders of the Government to overlook the priority applications, and the consequential orders issued by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, rejecting the application of the petitioner, are questioned on various grounds. Mainly, it is the case of the petitioner that no reasons have been recorded for overlooking the application of the petitioner, as contemplated under the Rules. A reference is made to Rule 12(3) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is also stated in the affidavit that the 4th respondent is taking steps to establish a Thermal Power Project at Kakarapalli village of Santhabommali Mandal in Srikakulam District, but the said area is a swamp area, where, large number of fishermen depend on fishing. It is the case of the petitioner that establishing such a power project in the said area, is in violation of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and the competent authorities have not granted clearance for the establishment of Thermal Power Project, and in that view of the matter, the Government could not have considered for grant of quarry lease in favour of the 4th respondent by overlooking the priority application of the petitioner. It is stated that there are no special reasons recorded in the order of the Government, as such; no reasons to overlook the application of the petitioner, so as to grant the quarry lease in favour of respondent No. 4. The further grievance of the petitioner is that before passing the orders by the Government in Memo No. 9375/M.n(1)/2008-l, dated 20th August 2008, and the consequential proceedings by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, no opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioner. On the aforesaid grounds, the petitioner seeks invalidation of the orders of the Government, dated 20th August 2008, and the further orders of the Deputy Director or Mines and Geology, issued in Proceedings No. 4115/Q1T/2007, dated 22nd of November 2008, rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease.

Counsel affidavits are filed by the official respondents, as well as respondent No. 4 in the writ petition. The official respondents have filed the counter affidavit with the following averments:

The petitioner has filed her application for grant of quarry lease in respect of gravel, road-metal and building stone over an extent of 50 Hectares in Survey No. 287 of Santhabommali village and Mandal of Srikakulam District, and the said application was received on 19-9-2007. Apart from the petitioner''s application, they have received two more applications i.e. one from Sri I. Venkata Shiva Laxmi Prasad on 5-12-2007 and the application of respondent No. 4 on 20th December 2007, for an extent of 52.52 Hectares. A reference is made to the Proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 3-4-2008, issued in Rc. No. 336/2007/A, wherein, ''No objection Certificate'' for grant of quarry lease over an extent of 60 Acres, is issued, stating that no objections are received from anybody, and the land is classified as ''Konda Poramboke land''. It is stated that the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Tekkali, vide letter No. 3674/Q/2007, dated 24-4-2008, has submitted the combined proposals of three applications, to take action as deemed fit for grant of quarry lease for gravel, road-metal and building stones among the applicants over an extent of 48.12 Acres is Survey No. 287 of Santhabommali village and Mandal. It is averred that basing on the ''No objection Certificate'' issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam, sought permission from the Director of Mines and Geology for issuance of temporary permits for gravel, road-metal and building stone in favour of the 4th respondent Company. The Director of Mines and Geology, vide Memo No. 16014/R1-1/2008, dated 12th of May 2008, accorded permission to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology for issuance of temporary permits for gravel for a quantity of 5 lakh cubic metres, duly collecting advance seigniorage fee for extracting the gravel over an extent of 48.12 Acres in Survey No. 287 of Santhabommali village, pending grant of regular lease to the 4th respondent. In the counter, a reference is made to the writ petition filed by the petitioner and also the directions issued for disposal of the application filed by the petitioner on 19-9-2007.

Counter further state that the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, has submitted a detailed report to the Government, basing on the detailed report submitted by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam vide proceedings, dated 2nd of May 2008, in respect of the three quarry lease applications for consideration over an extent of 48.12 Acres in Survey No. 287 of Santhabommali village and Mandal of Srikakulam District. Based on the recommendations, the Government, vide Memo No. 9375/M.II(1)/2008, dated 20th August 2008, passed orders in exercise of powers under Rule 12(3) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, directing the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam, for grant of quarry lease in favour of respondent No. 4 by overlooking the priority applications of petitioner and another applicant by name Sri I. Venkata Siva Laxmi Prasad.

In the counter, it is stated that prior to the submission of proposals to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam by the 4th respondent, a letter, dated 29th of March 2008 was submitted by the 4th respondent, stating that they intend to construct 2640 Mega Watt Thermal Power Station at Kakarapalli village of Santhabommali Mandal in Srikakulam District and that the applied mineral of gravel, road-metal and building stone will be required for improvement and development of storm water drains around the proposed site, otherwise, about 6000 Acres of fields owned by the farmers of the nearby villages will be inundated due to rainfall. It is further stated that setting up of the project in the said region will provide direct and indirect employment to thousands of people, which will contribute to the economic upliftment of the region, having regard to the mammoth investment of about Rs. 11,975 Crores. A statement filed by the 4th respondent is also referred to, wherein, they have stated that they require gravel to the tune of 13,50,000 cubic metres and Building stone of 9,90,000 cubic metres and sand of 1,20,000 cubic metres for improvement and development of storm water drains around the proposed site. It is stated in the counter affidavit that based on such a representation filed by the 4th respondent, after taking prior permission from the Director of Mines and Geology, temporary permits for gravel for a quantity of 67,000 cubic metres was issued by collecting the seigniorage fee of Rs. 13,40,000/-. With reference to the application of the petitioner, it is stated that though the petitioner has applied for permission for quarrying over an extent of 50 Acres in Survey No. 287, but the applicant has not submitted any specific purpose regarding consumption of gravel available in the area. The petitioner has also not produced relevant documents to show that such a large extent of area is required for her, for any captive purpose. In the counter, it is stated that the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam has rejected the application of the vide Proceedings No. 4115/Q1T/2007, dated 22nd of November 2008 and another application of one Sri 1. Venkata Siva Laxmi Prasad, vide Proceedings No. 49/Q1T/2008, dated 22nd November 2008, basing on the orders issued by the Government in Memo No. 9375/M.II(1)/2008-l, dated 20th of August 2008. The counter further states that the 4th respondent requires large quantity of gravel, road-metal and building stone for development of the area for construction of Thermal Power Plant at Kakarapalli village.

A separate counter affidavit is filed by respondent No. 4, wherein, the maintainability of the writ petition is questioned, as much as the petitioner has not availed the remedy of revision as provided under Rule 35-A of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease, is to sustain herself and to make money, whereas, the application of the 4th respondent is for formation of access road to the power project being developed by it in the land, vicinity to the subject land. In this regard, a reference is made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Raunaq International Limited Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Others, to the following effect:

As long as an administrative or commercial decision is not fanciful, unrealistic, or irrational, it ought not to be interfered with only because, a letter or different view could have been taken. The Courts dealing with such situations, much grant some latitude to the decision making authority.

The counter further states that the application of the 4th respondent for grant of quarry lease, is for construction of its proposed Thermal Power Plant, which is a public interest project, which creates employment for more than 600 people and supports the State as well as Central Exchequer by paying huge taxes and duties. It is stated that in view of the public interest involved in the application of the 4th respondent, the application of the petitioner, which is based on personal interest, should not be preferred.

With reference to the allegations of the petitioner, it is stated that the 4th respondent-Company is a special purpose vehicle, which is a joint venture of Infrastructure Finance Development Corporation (IDFC) and PTC India Private Limited, New Delhi and the 4th respondent herein. In terms of the objectives of the 4th respondent-Company, which has proposed to set up a Thermal Power Project having the capacity of 2640 Mega Watts near Tekkali of Srikakulam District, and with a view to utilize earth gravel for the purpose of formation of road and other amenities, made an application on 20th December 2007 to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Tekkali, for grant of lease over an extent of 52.52 Acres in Survey No. 287 of Santhabommali village. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that in response to the application filed by the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent had taken a decision to grant regular lease in favour of respondent No. 4, by overlooking the applications of others, pursuant to proceedings of the Government, dated 20th of August 2008. It is stated that the permission is granted in favour of the 4th respondent, in view of the importance of the project and the public interest involved. While making a reference to Rule 12(5)(b) of the Rules, it is stated that the Government has got power to overlook the priorities so long as the authorities acts within the fours of the Statute and no case is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the impugned orders. It is stated in the counter that the reasons recorded by the 1st respondent in the impugned order, for overlooking the application of the petitioner, are supported by the fact that the project being developed by the 4* respondent, is a public interest project. It is also stated that in the absence of any provision for affording the opportunity of hearing, the petitioner is not entitled for hearing before passing of the orders. Pleading that in view of the public interest involved, the authorities have rightly ordered for overlooking the application of the petitioner so as to award the quarry lease in favour of respondent No. 4, it is stated that if the interim orders, dated 30th of December 2008, are continued, it will cause a great hardship to the 4th respondent Company. With the above said averments, respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition by vacating the interim order.

Heard learned Counsel for petitioner Smt. N. Shoba and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri C. Kodandaram, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the 4th respondent-Company.

With reference to the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Counsel for petitioner has contended that though the petitioner is entitled for grant of quarry lease in view of her application, dated 19th September 2007, the petitioner is sought to be deprived of the same illegally and arbitrarily. It is submitted that as it is not in dispute that the application of the petitioner is earlier in point of time, than the application filed by the 4th respondent, in view of the rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, framed under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for award of quarry lease. It is further submitted that in any event, the Government has passed the impugned order in Memo No. 9375/M.II(1)/2008-1, dated 20th August 2008, without recording any special reasons for overlooking the priority applications, and as such, the said order is illegal and arbitrary. It is further submitted that in any event, the rejection of the application of the petitioner by the 3rd respondent vide Proceedings No. 4115/Q1T/2007, dated 22nd of November 2008, without conducting any inquiry and without issuing any notice, is illegal. It is submitted that as there are objections to the Power Plant, which is sought to be set up by the 4th respondent, there is no valid reason for granting prior approval by the Government for grant of quarry lease in favour of the 4th respondent, by overlooking the priority applications. It is further submitted that the Government, before issuing the orders in Memo No. 9375/M.II(1)/2008-l, dated 20th August 2008, has also not given the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. On the aforesaid submissions, it is pleaded by the learned Counsel for petitioner that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, and the learned Senior Counsel Sri C. Kodandaram, appearing for the 4th respondent, that this writ petition itself is not maintainable, as much as the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy of appeal/revision as contemplated under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, and there is no reason for the petitioner to file the writ petition in view of the availability of alternative remedy. It is further submitted that under the scheme of the Rules, it is not obligatory to follow priority in case of every application, and as the power project, which is proposed to be set up by the 4th respondent, is involved of public interest, the Government has exercised the power conferred under the Rules for granting prior approval for grant of quarry lease in favour of the 4th respondent, by overlooking the priority of the applications. It is submitted that merely because the application of the petitioner, who is an individual, is filed at an earlier point of time, it will not confer any right on the petitioner for award of lease in her favour. It is further submitted that the orders of the Government granting prior approval is purely an administrative action, and in that view of the matter, the Government has accepted the recommendations for overlooking the priority, and granted approval for grant of lease in favour of respondent No. 4, and as such, it cannot be said that no valid reasons exist for overlooking the priorities for grant of lease in favour of respondent No. 4. It is further submitted that the application made by the 4th respondent for grant of quarry lease for gravel and road-metal, is for its captive consumption i.e. for formation of access road to the power project being developed by it in the land vicinity to the subject land. It is submitted that having regard to the proposed project with an investment of Rs. 11,075 Crores, the Government has exercised the power under Rule 12 of the Rules by considering the public interest involved in setting up of the project, than the claim of the petitioner, who is an individual, and who has applied for grant of lease for earning money for herself. It is submitted that the thermal power plant, which is proposed with a capacity of 2640 Mega Watts, is a public interest project, which creates employment for more than 600 people and support the State as well as the Central Exchequer by paying huge taxes and duties. It is submitted that in view of the power conferred on the Government as per the Rules, and in the absence of violation of any Statutory or fundamental rights of the petitioner, the petitioner has no right to claim for grant of quarry lease in her favour, merely on the ground that her application is earlier in point of time. It is further submitted that as much as the order passed by the authority is not an order in exercise of quasi-judicial power, but as the same is an order in exercise of administrative power conferred under the Rules, it is not open for the petitioner to question the same on the ground that the order itself do not contain special reasons, and as such, the petitioner herself is not entitled for the opportunity of hearing, in the absence of any provision to that effect. In support of his arguments, the learned senior Counsel Sri C. Kodandaram has placed reliance on the following judgments:

Union of India and others Vs. E.G. Nambudiri,

Sireesa Geo Granites Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others,

In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the questions, which arise for consideration in these writ petitions are, whether the order of the Government, dated 20th August 2008, issued in memo No. 9375/M.II(1)/2008-1, in which, directions were issued for grant of quarry lease in favour of respondent No. 4 by overlooking the priority of the applications, is in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. Another question, which falls for consideration is, whether the petitioner is entitled for any hearing before the orders are passed by the Government and before the order of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, dated 22nd November 2008, issued in Proceedings No. 4115/Q1T/2007, rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease over the land in Sy. No. 287, admeasuring 50 Hectares, situated at Santhabommali village and Mandal of Srikakulam District. The further question, which falls for consideration is, whether any special reasons exist for grant of quarry lease in favour of the 4th respondent herein, for overlooking the priority of the applications.

It is not in dispute that the issue relates to grant of quarry lease in respect of gravel and road metal, which are minor minerals, and grant of such quarry lease, is governed by the provisions under the Andhra Pradesh Minor Concession Rules, 1966, framed in exercise of powers conferred u/s 15(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. Grant of lease and disposal of the applications for such grants, is regulated by the procedure contemplated under Rules 12 and 13 of the Rules referred above. As per Rule 12 of the Rules, a quarry lease for any minor mineral (except sand, granite useful for cutting and polishing and marble) shall be granted on application, subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (2) and (3), and each of such application for grant of quarry lease shall be accompanied by Treasury or Bank challan for Rs. 1,000/- in token of the remittance towards fees. The order of preferences for disposal of the applications, is governed by Rule 12(2) of the Rules. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the applications of petitioner as well as the 4th respondent come within the meaning of "other applications", under Rule 12(2)(iv) of the Rules. In that view of the matter, the relevant proviso is Proviso (5) to Rule 12(2). For the purpose of deciding the issue in the present writ petitions, it is appropriate to extract proviso (5) of Rule 12(2), which reads as under:

Provided also that whenever more than one application falling under category (iv) above are received for grant of a quarry lease and have to be considered in the order of preferred specified above, such preference shall be given to the applications according to the date of their receipt, unless the Government, for special reasons, otherwise direct and in case of application received on the same day, the Deputy Director after taking into consideration the particulars furnished in the applications, may grant the lease to any deserving applicant; or he may, with the previous approval of the Director, grant a quarry lease to an applicant whose application was received later in preference to an earlier application for any special reason to be recorded in writing.

Further, the quarry lease applications shall be disposed of by the Deputy director in the order specified under Rule 12(3) of the Rules, and the Deputy Director concerned is empowered under proviso (2) to Rule 12(3), to grant quarry lease overlooking the priorities and grant lease in view of the special reasons. Proviso (2) to Rule 12(3) read as under:

Provided further that the Deputy Director may, with the prior approval of the Government, grant a quarry lease overlooking the above priorities for any special reasons to be recorded in writing.

From a reading of the above said Rule and the relevant provisos referred above, it is clear that whenever more than one application, falling under category (iv) of Rule 12(2) of the Rules is received for grant of quarry lease, they are to be considered in the order of preference specified therein, and such preference shall be given to the applications according to the date of their receipt, unless the Government, for special reasons, otherwise direct, by issuing directions for grant of license, overlooking the priorities. Consequently, in view of proviso (2) to Rule 12(3), the Deputy Director is empowered to grant lease by overlooking the priorities, by recording reasons. From a reading of the Rules and relevant provisos, it is also clear that the directions contained in proviso (5) to Section (sic. Rule) 12(2), denote the administrative power of the Government for issuing directions to the Deputy Director concerned, to grant quarry lease, otherwise than the priority of applications. A reading of the said proviso (5) to Rule 12(2) shows that it is not an independent order to be passed by hearing the concerned parties. Mainly, the argument of the learned Counsel for petitioner is that the orders of the Government for overlooking the priorities, dated 20th August 2008, issued in Memo No. 9375/M.II(1)/2008-l, does not contain special reasons within the meaning of the Rules. During the course of arguments, the learned Government Pleader, appearing for respondents, has produced the entire file, which relates to passing of the order, dated 20th August 2008, and contend that from a reading of the provisos, it is clear that if special reasons exist to order for overlooking the priorities, the same are sufficient so as to issue directions to the concerned Deputy Director for disposal of the applications. Though it is not in dispute that the application of the petitioner is earlier in point of time, as the same was made on 19th September 2007, than that of the 4th respondent, which was made on 20th of December 2007, but in view of the representations made by respondent No. 4, having regard to the need of minerals for their captive consumption, the Deputy Director concerned, by recording reasons in a detailed note, has addressed the Government, to accord permission for overlooking the priorities of the applications. From the detailed note prepared by the Deputy Director, which was ultimately forwarded to the Government and was routed through the Zonal Joint Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam and the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, it is evident that the while seeking permission to overlook the priorities, it is specifically recommended by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, for grant of quarry lease in favour of the 4th respondent, stating that M/s. East Coast Energy Private Limited have submitted a project synopsis and from the salient features of the project, it is stated that the Thermal Power Plant to be established by the 4th respondent in an area of 2450 Acres at Kakarapalli village, will create direct employment for about 600 people and indirect employment for 1800 persons, in addition to development of the backward area. A reference is also made, stating that the proposed project is a Shell Company and is a joint venture of Infrastructure Development Finance Development Corporation (IFDC), which is a Government of India undertaking, and PTC India Private Limited, New Delhi. From the note files of various authorities and the endorsements thereon, it is clear that the respondents have verified the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the proposed Company and recommended for grant of quarry lease in favour of 4th respondent and such recommendations are accepted by the Government, in view of the public interest involved, and issued the Memo, dated 20th of August 2008, for overlooking the priorities. In the absence of any provision for recording reasons in the order itself by the Government before issuance of directions to the concerned authorities, the order cannot be said to be illegal, merely because the order itself does not contain the reasons for overlooking the priorities. From the perusal of the various notings on the file, I am satisfied that special reasons exist and recorded in the file proceedings, so as to give directions by the Government for overlooking the priorities for grant of quarry lease in favour of respondent No. 4. There is also no provision for affording the opportunity of hearing to the applicants at the stage of issuing directions by the Government to the concerned Deputy Director for disposal of applications, overlooking the priorities. In the absence of any provision for hearing, and also in the absence of any right for grant of quarry lease in favour of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the order passed by the 1st respondent is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The application of principles of natural justice and its sweep depend upon the nature of the rights involved, having regard to the setting and context of the Statutory provisions and the Rules. Where a vested right is aversely affected by an administrative order, or where civil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice apply even if the Statutory provisions and Rules do not make any express provision for the same. But, in the context of the claims made by the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent, there is no right as such, and it is settled position that mineral wealth is the property of the Government and no applicant, as a matter of right, can claim for grant of quarry lease, merely because an application is filed. Further, it is to be held that merely because the order itself does not contain reasons, that itself, is also no ground to find fault with the order of the Government.

The judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel Sri C. Kodandaram in this regard, in the case of Union of India (supra) also support his case. In paras 10 and 11 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under:

There is no dispute that there is no rule or administrative order for recording reasons in rejecting a representation. In the absence of any statutory rule or statutory instructions requiring the competent authority to record reasons in rejecting a representation made by a Government servant against the adverse entries the competent authority is not under any obligation to record reason. But the competent authority has no licence to act arbitrarily, he must act in a fair and just manner. He is required to consider the questions raised by the Government servant and examine the same, in the light of the comments made by the officer awarding the adverse entries and the officer countersigning the same. If the representation is rejected after its consideration in a fair and just manner, the order of rejection would not be rendered illegal merely on the ground of absence of reasons. In the absence of any statutory or administrative provision requiring the competent authority to record reasons or to communicate reasons, no exception can be taken to the order rejecting representation merely on the ground of absence of reasons. No order of an administrative authority communicating its decision is rendered illegal on the ground of absence of reasons ex-facie and it is not open to the Court to interfere with such orders merely on the ground of absence of any reasons. However, it does not mean that the administrative authority is at liberty to pass orders without there being any reasons for the same. In Government functioning before any order is issued the matter is generally considered at various levels and the reasons and opinions are contained in the notes on the file. The reasons contained in the file enable the competent authority to formulate its opinion. If the order as communicated to the Government servant rejecting the representation does not contain any reasons, the order cannot be held to be bad in law. If such an order is challenged in a Court of law, it is always open to the competent authority to place the reasons before the Court, which may have led to the rejection of the representation. It is always open to an administrative authority to produce evidence aliunde before the Court to justify its action.

The Present was under no legal obligation to record reasons in rejecting the respondent''s representation against the adverse remarks. Consequently, the order of the President was not vitiated in law. The Central Administrative Tribunal committed error in quashing the order of the President as well as the order of the Ministry of Commerce, dated 6-1-1986. Assuming that there was some defect in the order rejecting the respondent''s representation, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the adverse entries awarded to the respondent should be treated as having been expunged.

Further, a learned Single Judge of this Court, with reference to the very same set of Rules, in the judgment in the case of Sireesha Geo Granites (supra), has held to the following effect:

The law is well settled that unless the Statute specifically provides for an opportunity of hearing, there is no obligation for the Statutory authorities to afford such an opportunity, unless the party makes a request in that regard.

In that view of the matter, for the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the order of the Government, merely because the petitioner is not given any opportunity.

Even the consequential order, dated 22nd November 2008, issued in Proceedings No. 4115/Q1T/2007, is not an order for grant of quarry lease, but it is an order rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease. The said order is issued in view of the direction issued by the Government in Memo No. 9375/M.II(1)/2008-l, dated 20th August 2008, for overlooking the priority of the applications. Proviso (2) to Rule 12(3) of the Rules, merely obligates for recording reasons in writing while granting a quarry lease, if an application is considered overlooking the priority applications. In that view of the matter, the order, dated 21-11-2008, issued in Proceedings No. 4115/Q1T/2007, also cannot be said to be illegal and contrary to proviso (2) to Rule 12(3) of the Rules.

It is also the contention to the learned Counsel for petitioner that there is no valid reason to prefer the application of respondent No. 4 to that of the petitioner. Even according to the particulars furnished by the petitioner in the application for grant of quarry lease, the minerals are intended for business purposes, whereas, it is the specific case of the 4th respondent that the minerals, for which the application is made, are required for its captive consumption, for formation of access road to the power project being developed by it in the land vicinity to the subject land. It is also not in dispute that the 4th respondent is setting up a thermal power project having a capacity of 2640 Mega Watts and it is also a joint venture with the stake of the Infrastructure Finance Development Corporation (IFDC), which is a Government of India undertaking. Even from the reasons recorded by the authorities while recommending for overlooking the priorities, it is evident that the proposed project is in public interest and it will create direct employment for about 600 people and indirect employment for about 1800 people, and it is also beneficial to set up such a project in the area of Srikakulam District. In that view of the matter, having regard to the note files and endorsements made in the file relating to issuance of directions in the Proceedings, dated 20th August 2008, it is clear that the reasons as stated above, as recommended by the Deputy Director of Mines to the Government, which is routed through the Zonal Joint Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam and the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, are rightly accepted by the Government in view of the public interest involved in the matter and also having regard to the importance of establishing the project in the said area. Although it is the case of the petitioner that there are objections and the proposed project is in violation of the Wild Life Protection Act and the Environmental Laws, but a Proceedings, dated 9th April 2009, is also placed on record, to show that the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, has issued clearance to the proposed project of the 4th respondent. Though such aspects are not relevant directly for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions, but in view of the said clearance accorded by the Government of India, the plea of the petitioner that the proposed project is in violation of Environmental Laws, also cannot be accepted. In support of the argument of the learned Counsel for the 4th respondent Sri C. Kondandaram that public interest is involved in the establishment of the proposed project, and taking into account such aspect, the Government has ordered for overlooking the priorities, is also supported by the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Raunaq International Ltd. (1 supra). In the aforesaid judgment, while dealing with the element of public interest, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held in para 10 as under:

What are these elements of public interest? (1) Public money would be expended for the purposes of the contact; (2) The goods or services which are being commissioned could be for a public purpose, such as, construction of roads, public buildings, power plants or other public utilities. (3) The public would be directly interested in the timely fulfillment of the contract so that the services become available to the public expeditiously. (4) The public would also be interested in the quality of the work undertaken or goods supplied by the tenderer. Poor quality of work or goods can lead to tremendous public hardship and substantial financial outlay either in correcting mistakes or in rectifying defects or even at times in redoing the entire work - thus involving larger outlays of public money and delaying the availability of services, facilities or goods. E.g. A delay in commissioning a power project, as in the present case, could lead to power shortages, retardation of industrial development, hardship to the general public and substantial cost escalation.

By applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment, having regard to the object of the proposed project i.e. to produce energy with the capacity of 2640 Mega Watts, and also giving scope for direct and indirect employment, as stated by the authorities, it can certainly be said that the said project is in public interest. If such an industry requests for grant of quarry lease for their captive consumption, it cannot be said that there is no valid reason existing, for considering the application of the 4th respondent, overlooking the priority application of the petitioner, for grant of quarry lease. As rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader and also the learned Senior Counsel Sri C. Kodandaram, the reasons referred above, are made basis for recommendations for overlooking the priorities, and the Government has rightly accepted the same and issued the orders, dated 20th August 2008, which is evident from the file produced before this Court. In that view of the matter, neither the order of the Government, dated 20th August 2008, issued in Memo No. 9375/M.II(1)/2008-l, and the consequential order of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, dated 22nd November 2008, issued in proceedings No. 4115/Q1T/2007, rejecting the application of the petitioner, cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to the Rules for grant of quarry lease. More so, in the absence of any right in favour of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease, which is the wealth of the Government, the Government has rightly issued directions for overlooking the priorities. As much as the Government has exercised its administrative power conferred under the Rules, and further, in the absence of any right in favour of the petitioner to seek for an opportunity of hearing, I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the Government on 20th August 2008, and the consequential order of rejection, dated 21-11-2008, passed by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology.

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in W.P. No. 28827 of 2008, which is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No. 37722 of 2008 and W.V.M.P. No. 1949 of 2009 stand disposed of, by vacating the interim order, dated 30th December 2008. No order as to costs.

In view of dismissal of W.P. No. 28827 of 2008, for the same reasons, W.P. No. 28860 of 2008 is also dismissed. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No. 37756 of 2008 and W.V.M.P. No. 1909 of 2009 stand disposed of, by vacating the interim order, dated 31st December 2008. No order as to costs.