The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed authorities to decide pending quarry lease applications within three months under the newly introduced Minor Mineral Policy, 2025, reinforcing the constitutional obligation to avoid arbitrary administrative inaction. This order establishes a clear timeline for adjudication of mineral concessions, offering much-needed clarity to applicants caught in bureaucratic limbo.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Manchiraju Jitendra, applied on 02.07.2025 for a quarry lease under the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, seeking permission to extract Building Stone, Morrum/Gravel, Ordinary Earth, Road Metal and Ballast from Sy. No.316 of Kunchangi Village, Anakapalli Mandal, covering an area of 2.69 hectares. The application was submitted in Form-P as mandated by the Rules. Despite the petitioner fulfilling all procedural requirements, including submission of requisite documents and payment of fees, the 2nd and 3rd respondents - the Director of Mines and Geology and the District Mines and Geology Officer - failed to dispose of the application, leaving it pending for an unreasonable duration.
Key Facts
- The petitioner filed the quarry lease application on 02.07.2025.
- The application sought extraction rights over 2.69 hectares in Sy. No.316, Kunchangi Village.
- The petitioner relied on G.O.Ms.No.100, Industries & Commerce (Mines-II) Department, dated 26.06.2025, which introduced the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Policy, 2025.
- The Tahsildar of Anakapalli issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology on the petitioner’s application.
- The petitioner had not received any formal rejection or request for additional information.
- The application remained pending without any substantive action beyond the initial receipt.
Procedural History
- 02.07.2025: Petitioner filed quarry lease application in Form-P before the 2nd and 3rd respondents.
- 26.06.2025: Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.100, introducing the Minor Mineral Policy, 2025.
- 08.05.2026: Writ Petition No.13921/2026 filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.
- 08.05.2026: Court heard arguments and passed order.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: Learned counsel contended that the petitioner had complied with all statutory and procedural requirements under the AP Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The issuance of an NOC by the Tahsildar confirmed that no land-use or revenue-related objections existed. The prolonged inaction by the respondents, despite the availability of a clear policy framework under G.O.Ms.No.100/2025, amounted to arbitrary delay violating Article 14 and Article 300-A of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on two prior orders of the same Court dated 15.12.2025 and 17.02.2026, which had directed timely disposal of similar pending applications.
For the Respondents: The Assistant Government Pleader acknowledged that the application was pending but argued that multiple departmental clearances were still required. However, the learned counsel fairly conceded that the Tahsildar had already submitted a favorable report and issued an NOC, indicating that the only remaining step was administrative processing by the Mines Department.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to dispose of the quarry lease application within a stipulated time, declaring the inaction as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 300-A.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether administrative inaction on a mineral lease application, after completion of all mandatory formalities and issuance of a NOC by a subordinate authority, constitutes a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, and whether the newly introduced Minor Mineral Policy, 2025, imposes a binding obligation on authorities to decide pending applications within a fixed timeframe.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the State’s duty under Article 14 requires reasonable, non-arbitrary, and time-bound decision-making, especially in matters involving economic rights under Article 300-A. The issuance of the NOC by the Tahsildar removed all substantive impediments. The petitioner relied on G.O.Ms.No.100/2025, which explicitly mandates the disposal of pending applications under its Clause 12(2-A)(iii), and cited two recent orders of the same Court as binding precedents for expeditious disposal. The delay, exceeding eight months without any communication, was argued to be per se unreasonable.
For the Respondent
The Assistant Government Pleader conceded that the application was pending but claimed that internal departmental coordination was still underway. However, no specific impediment beyond routine processing was identified. Crucially, the respondent did not dispute the petitioner’s compliance with the rules or the validity of the Tahsildar’s NOC. The submission was essentially that the matter was under consideration, without any justification for the delay.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the petitioner had fulfilled all procedural prerequisites under the AP Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The issuance of a No Objection Certificate by the Tahsildar - a statutorily recognized authority for land-related clearances - removed any plausible ground for continued delay. The Court noted that the State had itself introduced G.O.Ms.No.100/2025 to streamline the process and eliminate backlog, particularly for applications pending as of 13.03.2022. Clause 12(2-A)(iii) of the Policy explicitly directs the Director or Deputy Director to consider deemed eligible applications, subject to priority and payment of security deposit.
"The State cannot remain silent on applications that meet all eligibility criteria, especially when it has itself laid down a policy framework for their expeditious disposal. Administrative silence in the face of statutory and policy obligations amounts to arbitrariness."
The Court emphasized that the policy was not merely advisory but a binding administrative directive issued under the State’s executive power, and its provisions must be implemented in good faith. The Court further held that the petitioner’s application, filed on 02.07.2025, fell squarely within the ambit of applications contemplated under the Policy, and the State’s failure to act beyond the initial receipt stage was indefensible.
The Court also rejected the notion that internal bureaucratic processes could justify indefinite delay. Where a subordinate authority has cleared the application and no statutory bar exists, the higher authorities are under a constitutional duty to act.
The Verdict
The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to decide the petitioner’s quarry lease application dated 02.07.2025 in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.100/2025 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending interlocutory applications are closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Administrative Silence Is Not a Valid Ground for Denial
- Practitioners may now invoke G.O.Ms.No.100/2025 to demand timely disposal of pending mineral lease applications, even if no formal rejection has been issued.
- Where a subordinate authority (e.g., Tahsildar) has issued an NOC, the higher authority cannot delay indefinitely on vague grounds of "internal coordination."
- Delay beyond the policy-mandated period may now be challenged as a violation of Article 14.
Policy Directives Bind State Agencies
- Government orders issued under executive power, especially those aimed at reducing bureaucratic delays, are legally enforceable.
- Applicants need not wait for formal rejection before approaching the High Court - prolonged inaction alone constitutes sufficient grounds for writ relief.
- The Court’s reliance on its own prior orders creates a binding precedent for similar cases across Andhra Pradesh.
Timeline as a Legal Standard
- The three-month deadline set by the Court is now a de facto statutory benchmark for mineral lease decisions in Andhra Pradesh.
- Future applicants may cite this judgment to demand compliance with timelines in other administrative domains where similar policies exist.
- Failure to comply may result in contempt proceedings or mandatory compensation claims under Article 226.
