Amareswari, J.
1. These three writ petitions involve a common question of law as to the interpretation of S. 2, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Act 69 of 1980).
2. The brief facts are as follows :-
The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6357 of 1983 was granted a mining lease for one year on 23-5-1980 over an extent of 9 acres 30 cents in Tadepalli, Mangalagiri Taluk for murram and road metal. He made an application for renewal on 11-2-1981 within the specified time. The application was rejected by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology by order dt. 3-4-1981 on the ground that the applied area is situate in a reserve forest and as per Ordinance No. 17 of 1980 (later replaced by Act 69 of 1980) 'reserved areas should not be put for a non-forest use'. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the State Government under R. 35, Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The State Government by its order dt. 30-4-1983 dismissed the appeal. It is the validity of these two orders that is challenged in this writ petition.
3. The petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 6788 of 1983 and 7234 of 1985 was granted a mining lease for quarrying limestone over an extent of 58 acres in Survey No. 120 of Madinapadu, notified as a reserve forest area in Piduguralla Taluk, Guntur District. As the lease was expiring on 8-5-1982 an application for renewal was made on 30-4-1981. The application was not disposed of within two months as required by the Rules. A revision was filed before the Central Government under S. 30, Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act against the deemed rejection. The Central Government allowed the revision on 31-5-1983 and directed the State Government to dispose of the application. As the State Government had taken no action, Writ Petition No. 6788 of 1983 is filed challenging the inaction of the State Government on the application for renewal. Since the Forest Department was not made a party in Writ Petition No. 6788 of 1983, Writ, Petition No. 7234 of 1985 was filed impleading the Forest Department also as a party respondent. In these writ petitions, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to renew the mining lease.
4. The respondents filed a counter resisting the claim of the petitioners contending that S. 2, Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, prohibits the grant of leases of my land situate in a reserve forest area and hence the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
5. When the writ petitions came up for hearing before our learned brother Ramaswamy, J., it was contended that S. 2, Forest (Conservation) Act, had no application to leases already granted as the land was broken up and it applies only to fresh leases in respect of 'virgin area'. In support of this contention, reliance placed on a judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 795 of 1985 dt. 20-8-1985 and the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram, : AIR1985SC814 . The respondents contended that renewal is a fresh grant and S. 2 which aims at conservation of forests prohibits the grant of any permission to use a forest area for a non-forest purpose except with the prior approval of the Central Government and the petitioners have no automatic right of renewal. They relied upon an earlier Bench decision of this Court in Anupama Minerals v. Union of India, : AIR1986AP225 and a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone, : [1981]2SCR742 . The learned Single Judge was of the view that having regard to the purpose and object of the Conservation Act, no lease of a reserve forest area can be granted except in accordance with S. 2 of the Act and the view of the later Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 795 of 1985 requires reconsideration and referred the matter for a decision by a Full Bench.
6. The Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 (preceded by Ordinance No. 17 of 1980) came into force on 25-10-80. Section 2 of the Act is as follows :-
'2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose :- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing -
(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression 'reserved forest') in any law for the time being in force in that State or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved;
(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose.
Explanation :- For the purposes of this Section 'non-forest purpose' means breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for any purpose other than reafforestation'.
It is plain from the Section that after coming into force of this Act, the State Government is prohibited from making an order permitting the use of any forest land for a no forest purpose' means as contained in the explanation breaking up or clearing up any forest for any purpose other than reafforestation. Basing upon the Explanation to S. 2, it is contended that the approval of the Central Government is necessary only in a case where land is sought to be broken up for the first time and not to case where land is already broken up by virtue of prior leases.
7. To appreciate this contention, it is necessary to examine the object and the intendment of the Act. The statement of objects and reasons indicates that the Act was passed with a view to check deforestation which had been taking place in the Country on a large scale causing ecological imbalance leading to environmental deterioration. It cannot be gainsaid that breaking up the soil or clearing of the forest land affects reafforestation or regeneration of forests and such activity can only be permitted after taking into consideration all aspects of the question such as the over all advantages and disadvantages to the economy of the country, environmental conditions, ecological imbalance that is likely to occur, its effects on the 'flora and the fauna' in the area. Therefore, it was thought that the entire control of forest areas should vest in the Central Government. With that end in view, S. 2 had provided that prior approval of the Central Government should be obtained before permitting the use of the forest land for a non-forest purpose. The Act has provided for constitution of an Advisory Committee to advise the Central Government on all cases in which the question of granting permission required by S. 2 of the Act arises. The intention of the Act is to serve a laudable purpose. It has, therefore, to be enforced strictly for the benefit of the general public. The Act applies not merely to cases for mining leases in respect of areas within the reserve forest, but to all cases where forest land is sought to be used for non-forest purpose.
8. A Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the question whether renewal of a mining lease of an area situate in a reserve forest can be granted by the State Government without complying with S. 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 in M/s. Anupama Minerals v. Union of India, : AIR1986AP225 . The facts in this case are almost identical. The party who had a lease in his favour applied for renewal after the Forest Act had come into force as the lease had expired by them. The question was whether prior approval of the Central Government had to be obtained. After an exhaustive consideration of all the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, the Division Bench held as follows :-
'It is thus clear, on a reading of the Act and the Rules, that with effect from the date of coming into force of the act, neither the State Government nor any other authority is entitled to permit any forest land or any portion thereof to be used for any non-forest purpose except with the prior approval of the Central Government.
'Non-forest purposes' means breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for any purpose other than reafforestation. Indisputably, using a forest land or a portion thereof for the purpose of mining is a non-forest purpose.'
Thus, this decision had authoritatively laid down that even in case of renewal, S. 2 had to be complied with. But it is contended by Mr. S.L. Chennakesava Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioners that this point was not argued and the learned Judges took it for granted that S. 2 applies even to case of renewal. True, as contended by the learned Counsel, that the contention in this form had not been raised as evident from Para 10 of the Judgment at page 152 where the contentions are extracted. But the learned Judges considered the scope of S. 2 with reference to various other provisions of the Act. It cannot thereof, be said that the observations of the Division Bench in M/s. Anupama Minerals v. Union of India, : AIR1986AP225 are obiter.
8A. The learned Counsel Mr. S. L. Chennakesava Rao then strenuously contended that the decision in Anupama Minerals case is no longer good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram, : AIR1985SC814 . Holding that S. 2 is attracted only to leases in respect of virgin area and (not) in the case of renewals, the land is already tapped and it ceased to be avirgin area. In other words, the argument was that S. 2 applies only to a case of fresh lease for the first time and not renewals.
Since the entire argument is based upon the decision in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram, : AIR1985SC814 , we will deal with the facts in detail. In this case, a mining lease was granted for winning mica for a period of 20 years and the lease was expiring by 24-4-1986. The Forest Act came into force on 25-10-1980. During the course of mining operations, the lessee discovered two other minerals Felspar and Quartz. This discovery was subsequent to the coming into force of the Forest Act. The lessee applied to the State Government for inclusion of these two minerals in the lease deed since no mineral can be won unless it is included in the lease. The State Government without reference to S. 2 of the Act accorded permission and amended the lease deed including the two new minerals. However, notwithstanding the amendment of the lease deed, by the State Government, the Forest officials obstructed the lessee from winning the new minerals on the ground that the permission of the Central Government was not obtained by the State Government for including these two minerals in the lease deed. The lessee moved the High Court of Bihar by way of a writ petition and the same was allowed. The State of Bihar carried the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court. The contention of the State of Bihar was that after coming into force of the Act, no permission to win any mineral from any part of the forest area can be granted by the State Government except with the prior approval of the Central Government except with the prior approval of the Central Government. This contention was negatived by the Supreme Court. After referring to S. 2 and the explanation thereto, the Supreme Court held as follows :-
'Reading them together, these two parts of the Section mean that after the commencement of the Act no fresh breaking up of the forest land or no fresh clearing of the forest on any such land can be permitted by any State Government or any authority without the prior approval of the Central Government. But if such permission has been accorded before the coming into force of the Act and the forest land is broken up or cleared then obviously the section cannot apply. In the instant case, it is not disputed that in an area of five acre out of eighty acres covered by the mining lease the forest land had been dug up and mining operations were being carried on even prior to the coming into force of the Act. If the State Government permits the lessee by the amendment of the lease deed to win and remove felspar and quartz also in addition to mica it cannot be said that the State Government had violated S. 2 of the Act because thereby no permission for fresh breaking up of forest land is being given. The result of taking the contrary view will be that while the digging for purposes of winning mica can go on, the lessee would be deprived of collecting felspar or quartz which he may come across while he is carrying on mining operations for winning mica. That would lead to an unreasonable result which would not in any way subserve the object of the Act. We are, therefore, of the view that while before granting permission to start mining operations on a virgin area S. 2 of the Act has to be complied with it is not necessary to seek the prior approval of the Central Government for purposes of carrying out mining operations in a forest area which is broken up or clear before the commencement of the Act.'
9. Thus, it is seen that this is not a case of renewal of a mining lease. The application was for amendment of a lease deed under which a lease was granted long prior to the Act had come into force. No permission for fresh breaking up is granted. Even without amendment, the lessee was free to carry on mining operations till the expiry of the lease period. The learned Judges are conscious of the fact that this is not an application for renewal of the lease as evident from the following observations in para 2:-
'By the said deed, felspar and quartz were included in the original lease as minerals which the lessee could win and carry away after paying the required royalty from the area over which he had been granted lease for mining mica. All other conditions of the lease including the period of lease remained the same. In fact it was not a new mining lease for a fresh period. The lease is to expire on April 24, 1986 as originally stipulated.'
The observations that the period of lease remained the same and it is not a new mining lease for a fresh period made it abundantly clear that if a lease for a fresh period is required, compliance with S. 2 is necessary. The facts in this case are totally different and clearly distinguishable.
With utmost respect, we hold that the observations made in this Judgment that the permission of the Central Government is necessary only for mining operations in a 'virgin area' are to be confined to the facts of that case.
10. The learned Counsel then relied upon a decision of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 795 of 1985 wherein the principle was applied to a case of renewal and held that S. 2 need not be complied with in the case of renewals as the land is already broken up.
11. We do not think that the Division Bench was right. After all what is renewal? It is in fact and in essence a fresh lease. It is a lease for a fresh period.
12. In State of T. N. v. Hind Stone, : [1981]2SCR742 , Justice Chinnappa Reddy, who spoke for the Court held that an application for renewal of lease is in essence an application for grant of a lease for fresh period. In view of this decision, we have no doubt that the application for renewal has to be treated as an application for a fresh lease for the purpose of S. 2 of the Act and the approval of the Central Government has to be necessarily obtained. By granting renewal, the State Government would be permitting fresh breaking up and clearing of the forest. But for the renewal the lessee would not be able to do it as the lease had expired unlike in the case of State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram, : AIR1985SC814 where even without the fresh permission, the lessee could carry on the mining operations. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel that S. 2 has no application to a case of renewal of leases.
13. We accordingly hold that the decision of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 795 of 1985 is not correct.
However, the rejection of the renewal application by the respondents on the ground that the Forest (Conservation) Act prohibited grant of lease altogether within the reserve forest area is illegal. The Act did not contain any such absolute ban, but only provided that the prior approval of the Central Government shall be obtained before permitting any use of the reserve forest for a non-forest purpose which includes the use of land for mining purposes as well. All that S. 2 says is that no State Government or other authority shall make an order directing the reserve forest land or any portion thereof to be used for non-forest purpose except with the prior approval of the Central Government.
14. We accordingly quash the orders of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology dt. 3-4-1981 and the order of the State Government dt. 30-4-1983. In the circumstances, we deemed it fit to give the following directions :-
(1) The respondents shall consider the applications for renewal and if they are of the opinion that renewal should be granted, they shall address the Central Government for its approval under S. 2, Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 and the Forest (Conservation) Rules.
(2) If the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology or the State Government, as the case may be, so address the Central Government, the latter shall consider the matter in accordance with law and communicate their approval or rejection to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology or the State Government.
(3) We direct the respondents to consider the applications within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and in case the Central Government is addressed for according prior approval, the Central Government shall take a decision within three months thereof and indicate its opinion to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology or the State Government.
15. We may clarify that no applicant has a 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 is of the opinion that renewal should be granted they should seek the prior approval of the Central Government.
16. The writ petitions are allowed to the limited extent as indicated above. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 250/- in each.
17. Order accordingly.