Quarry lease power must stay with the statutory authority, and pending applications cannot be deferred on an unfinalised policy.

Rule 12(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 vested power to grant and regulate quarry leases in the Director of Mines and Geology, so an Officer on Special Duty had no statutory authority to direct otherwise and the memorandum was invalid. Applications for quarry leases also could not be kept pending on the basis of an unfinalised proposed policy, because a conferred public power must be exercised within a reasonable time and without undue delay. The impugned memorandum could not stand, and the order under appeal was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Officer on Special Duty had authority in law to direct the Director of Mines and Geology not to grant quarry leases. (ii) Whether applications for quarry leases could be kept pending on the basis of a proposed but unfinalised policy, and whether the statutory authority was bound to act within a reasonable time.

Issue (i): Whether the Officer on Special Duty had authority in law to direct the Director of Mines and Geology not to grant quarry leases.

Analysis: The field of regulation of mines and minerals is occupied by the parliamentary enactment under Entry 54 of List I, while Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 authorises the State Government to frame rules for minor minerals. Under the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, Rule 12(5) vests the power to grant and regulate quarry leases in the Director. The Rules do not provide for any Officer on Special Duty exercising a parallel or superior authority. A direction issued by such an officer, without statutory source, therefore falls outside the rule-based scheme.

Conclusion: The Officer on Special Duty had no authority or jurisdiction to issue the memorandum, and the memorandum was invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether applications for quarry leases could be kept pending on the basis of a proposed but unfinalised policy, and whether the statutory authority was bound to act within a reasonable time.

Analysis: Rule 12(5) does not support indefinite postponement of consideration of applications. Where a public power is conferred and no express time limit is fixed, the power must be exercised within a reasonable time and without undue delay. A contemplated policy that has not yet been finalised cannot govern the disposal of pending statutory applications. The direction to keep applications pending on that basis was, therefore, inconsistent with the governing legal position.

Conclusion: Pending applications could not be kept in abeyance because of a proposed policy, and the statutory authority was required to deal with them expeditiously.

Final Conclusion: The impugned memorandum could not stand and the order under appeal was set aside, resulting in relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statute and rules vest a specific power in a designated authority, no non-statutory officer can assume that power, and a public authority must exercise a conferred power within a reasonable time rather than defer decision-making on the basis of an unfinalised policy.

---