Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
D.B. Bhosale, Actg. C.J. and S.V. Bhatt

JUDGMENT

D.B. Bhosale, Actg. C.J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent of learned counsel heard forthwith.

2. Principally, two prayers have been made in these petitions, first, to declare that Sections 8, 10, 11 and 13 of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short the Amendment Act) notified in the extraordinary gazette dated 27.03.2015 and brought into effect on 12.01.2015, are unreasonable, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 39, 300(A) and 301 of the Constitution of India, and second, a direction to the respondents to complete processing of their applications for prospecting licences made in accordance with the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short the Principal Act) as available prior to the date of the Amendment Act came into effect.

3. The petitioners in these petitions had applied for prospecting licence-cum-mining lease under Section 10 for minerals like limestone, and while their applications were pending, the Amendment Act came into effect and as a result thereof their applications became ineligible, and hence they have prayed for striking down the aforesaid provisions of the Amendment Act and sought direction to process their applications under the Principal Act. Sub-section(1) of Section 10A of the Amendment Act states that all applications received prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment Act (i.e. 12.01.2015) became ineligible.

4. Though the petitioners in these petitions are different the challenge raised is similar. In order to consider and appreciate the grounds of challenge, we deem it necessary to state few facts, to the extent they are necessary, of the Writ Petition No. 11582 of 2015, which was argued by Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. He made leading arguments in this batch of writ petitions.

4.1 The first petitioner-Company, in this petition, is 100% share holder (Holding Company) of the second petitioner-Company. The third petitioner is one of the promoter shareholders of the first petitioner-Company. The first petitioner-Companys applications for grant of mineral concessions (prospecting licence-cum-mining lease) were pending with the 2nd respondent-State of Andhra Pradesh on the date when the Amendment Act came into effect. Their applications, as claimed by them, have direct impact on the first and second petitioner-Companies and also the interest of the third petitioner as their promoter shareholder.

4.2 The first petitioner-Company is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Presently, it is having 5.2 million tons per annum manufacturing capacity of cement at its fact........