Lisa Gill, CJ.

1. Prayer in this writ appeal is for setting aside order, dated 07.05.2026, passed in W.P. No.3503 of 2026 whereby learned Single Bench has dismissed writ petition filed by present appellant/writ petitioner.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that writ petition No.3503 of 2026 was filed by appellant/writ petitioner for setting aside notification, dated 08.01.2026, for grant of mining lease with respect to two combined gold blocks in State of Andhra Pradesh or any such tender for said blocks in Chigurugunta Bisanatham, Chittoor District, without considering case of writ petitioner and without bringing to notice of respondent No.1 in terms of letter dated 23.04.2015, issued by Ministry of Mines. It was further prayed that respondents be directed to consider and take appropriate action in view of letter dated 23.04.2015, and execute a mining lease in favour of writ petitioner. Restraint was sought on respondents from issuing any fresh Notification Inviting Tenders (NIT) in respect of subject mining areas before deciding writ petitioner‟s case.

3. It was pleaded that writ petitioner being registered under Companies Act, 1956; engaged in mineral exploration and mining, applied for mining lease for gold and silver over an extent of Ac.551.00 in Sy. No.185 of Onnappanyani Kothuru Village, Gudupalli Mandal, Chittoor District. Its application was recommended by 2nd respondent to 1st respondent under Section 5(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, „MMDR Act‟) vide memo dated 24.02.2014, for grant of lease for 30 years. Respondent No.1 vide communication dated 23.04.2015, directed examination of eligibility of proposal under Section 10A of MMDR Act while instructing that ineligible proposal be closed and eligible be referred to Ministry under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, and Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015.

4. It is further pleaded that State Government forwarded writ petitioner‟s case but prior approval was not granted. Upon prolonged inaction, writ petitioner submitted a representation, dated 08.05.2015, which was also not considered. W.P. No.46766 of 2016 was filed by writ petitioner seeking finalization of its case and grant of mining lease. While writ petition was pending, NIT dated 23.04.2018, was issued for the same mining area which was challenged by writ petitioner in another W.P. No.18893 of 2018.

5. Vide interim order, dated 08.06.2018, restraint on finalization of tender was ordered. After a lapse of seven years, notification dated 14.10.2025, was yet again issued for the very same mining area stated to have been recommended in writ petitioner‟s favour in 2015. Accordingly, W.P. No.32402 of 2025 was then filed by writ petitioner. Said NIT was annulled and a fresh NIT was issued vide notification, dated 08.01.2026, leading to filing of W.P. No.3503 of 2026, which is subject matter of present appeal.

6. Learned Single Bench on considering facts and circumstances of matter found no merit in arguments as raised on behalf of writ petitioner. W.P. No.3503 of 2026 was thus dismissed vide impugned order, dated 07.05.2026. It is held by learned Single Bench that Letter of Intent was in fact never issued in favour of writ petitioner. Prior approval of Central Government as wasrequired, was never afforded. Therefore, writ petitioner‟s case does not fall within ambit of Section 10A(2)(c) of the Act .

7. Prayer of writ petitioner addressed after reserving matter for judgment by way of an application that writ petition had become infructuous on account of NIT in question being annulled in the interregnum and it should thus be disposed of as such, was rejected. Aggrieved therefrom, present appeal has been filed.

8. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argues that learned Single Bench has grossly erred in dismissing writ petition and controversy in question has not been considered in correct perspective.

9. It was first and foremost argued that once notification dated 08.01.2026, was annulled though after the matter had been reserved for orders, learned Single Bench should have allowed Interlocutory Application filed by writ petitioner and disposed of writ petition as infructuous rather than deciding the same on merits. It was thus prayed that impugned order should be set aside giving liberty to appellant to challenge subsequent notification issued for mining lease on same grounds and any other as may be available.

10. It was further argued that even on merits learned Single Bench has grossly erred in arriving at the conclusion that Letter of Intent was not issued to writ petitioner. Once State Government vide communication No.9982/M-III(2)/2007-19, dated 24.02.2014, to Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Mines, had provisionally decided to grant mining lease for gold and silver over the area described for a period of 30 years, there was no question of concluding that Letter of Intent as such was not issued in writ petitioner‟s favour. Communication, dated 24.02.2014, is virtually a Letter of Intent and should have been construed to be as such.

11. It was further submitted that learned Single Bench has grossly erred in holding that there is any delay on the part of writ petitioner in approaching Court. It was thus prayed that impugned order dated 07.05.2026, be set aside.

12. Learned counsel for respondents has opposed this writ appeal, while submitting that communication dated 24.02.2014, cannot be construed to be a Letter of Intent. It is specifically mentioned therein that there was a provisional decision to grant mining lease subject to prior approval from Government of India under Section 5(1)(b) of MMDR Act, 1957, as well as subject to approval of Ministry of Mines, Government of India, for an examination from notifying above said area for re-grant under Rule 59(2) of M.C. Rules, 1960, besides subject to environmental clearance from MoEF, Government of India, and consent of Establishment from APPCB. There is a specific request vide said communication, dated 24.02.2014, seeking prior approval from Ministry of Mines, Government of India, under Section 5(1)(b) of MMDR Act, 1957.

13. Learned Advocate General further stated that learned Single Bench has correctly rejected prayer for disposing of writ petition as infructuous merely on account of annulment of notification, dated 08.01.2026. Controversy as raised in writ petition was not dependent upon issuance of notification, dated 08.01.2026, and there was no occasion for disposing of said writ petition as infructuous and thereafter affording another opportunity to writ petitioner to rake up very same issues and arguments in a subsequent writ petition. Dismissal of appeal was sought.

14. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the file carefully.

15. It is a matter of record that appellant/writ petitioner applied for grant of mining lease for gold and silver over Ac.551.00 acres of land in Sy.No.185 as stated in foregoing paras. Several competing applications were pending for the area. Previously, Government of A.P. decided to grant mining lease in favour of M/s APMDC Limited, a State Public Sector Undertaking, giving it priority under Rule 11(5) of MMDR Act, 1957 and Government of India was requested to issue prior approval under Section 5(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by orders of Government, certain review applications were filed before Government of India. Government of India, vide order dated 17.09.2009, directed reconsideration of competing applications in accordance with law and principles of natural justice and passing of appropriate orders.

16. Government after considering the matter issued communication dated 24.02.2014 stating that mining lease to writ petitioner may be granted for a period of 30 years by overlooking priority as per Section 11(5) of the Act vide communication, dated 24.02.2014. Prior approval as is necessary under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act was sought from Government of India. It is this communication, dated 24.02.2014, which is urged by writ petitioner to be accepted as Letter of Intent.

17. As per Section 5(1) of the Act, no such mining lease as is described thereunder shall be granted except with prior approval of Central Government. It is to be noted that in the interregnum, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, came into force. Ushering the era of grant of mining lease by way of auction, it rendered pre-amendment applications to be ineligible except those protected under Section 10A(2)(c). Section 10A reads as under:

                  “10A. (1) All applications received prior to the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, shall become ineligible. (2) Without prejudice to sub-section (1), the following shall remain eligible on and from the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015:—

                  (a) applications received under section 11A of this Act;

                  (b) where before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 a reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence has been granted in respect of any land for any mineral, the permit holder or the licensee shall have a right for obtaining a prospecting licence followed by a mining lease, or a mining lease, as the case may be, in respect of that mineral in that land, if the State Government is satisfied that the permit holder or the licensee, as the case may be,—

                  (i) has undertaken reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations, as the case may be, to establish the existence of mineral contents in such land in accordance with such parameters as may be prescribed by the Central Government;

                  (ii) has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the reconnaissance permit or the prospecting licence;

                  and

                  (iii) has not become ineligible under the provisions of this Act;

                  (iv) has not failed to apply for grant of prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, within a period of three months after the expiry of reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence, as the case may be, or within such further period not exceeding six months as may be extended by the State Government;

                  (c) where the Central Government has communicated previous approval as required under sub-section (1) of section 5 for grant of a mining lease, or if a letter of intent (by whatever name called) has been issued by the State Government to grant a mining lease, before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, the mining lease shall be granted subject to fulfilment of the conditions of the previous approval or of the letter of intent within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the said Act:

                  Provided that in respect of any mineral specified in the First Schedule, no prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted under clause (b) of this subsection except with the previous approval of the Central Government.”

18. It is in this factual matrix that learned Single Bench concluded that prior approval as required under Section 5(1) of the Act for grant of mining lease had never been afforded and communication, dated 24.02.2014, cannot be held to be a Letter of Intent by any stretch of imagination.

19. A perusal of communication clearly indicates that it is a recommendation. It is not denied by learned counsel for appellant/writ petitioner that approval from Central Government as required was never forthcoming. To the contrary, it is communication, dated 23.04.2015, which had been issued by Government of India to Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries and Commerce Department, to the effect that proposal for accord of prior approval for grant of mining concession becomes ineligible as per provisions of Section 10A(1) of MMDR Amendment Act, 2015. The State Government was advised to ascertain whether proposal for grant of mineral concession is saved from ineligibility.

20. Learned Senior Counsel is unable to point out any illegality or infirmity in this conclusion. In the given factual matrix, appellant/writ petitioner can definitely not claim any entitlement to grant of mining lease in terms of Section 10A(2)(c) of the Act. Reliance was correctly placed by learned Single Bench on judgment of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in Bhushan Power and Steel Limited v. S.L. Seal (2017) 2 SCC 125.

21. Reference was pointedly made by learned counsel for appellant to communication, dated 23.04.2015, whereby Government of India had asked the State to ascertain whether proposal for grant of mineral concession is saved from ineligibility as per provision of Section 10A of MMDR Amendment Act, 2015. Argument that State Government had been advised to ascertain whether grant of mineral concession is saved from ineligibility made it incumbent upon State Government to take up matter again, is devoid of any merit. This is so for the reason that yet again effort on part of learned counsel for writ petitioner was to rely upon communication dated 24.02.2014, as if it was a Letter of Intent. Similarly, argument raised on behalf of appellant/writ petitioner that writ petition should not have been decided in isolation, as W.P. No.18893 of 2018 challenging earlier notification dated 23.04.2018, was still pending, is equally devoid of any merit.

22. This argument is clearly counter-productive inasmuch as on one hand, it is sought to be urged by appellant that its application seeking W.P. No.3503 of 2026 to be disposed of as infructuous, was wrongly rejected due to annulment of notification, dated 08.01.2026, while on the other hand, it is an admitted position that notification as challenged in W.P. No.18893 of 2018 also stood annulled. This argument is thus rejected.

23. In the given factual matrix, learned Single Bench has correctly rejected prayer for disposing of writ petition as infructuous, as it is apparent that basic question as raised by writ petitioner would have remained same even in any subsequent writ petition, which may have been filed challenging notification No.3273739/NIT-T1/2026, dated 29.05.2026, which had been issued by the Department in respect to mining lease in question. Insofar as right of writ petitioner to challenge subsequent notification(s) on any other ground is concerned, there can be no bar. Therefore, in our considered opinion, learned Single Bench correctly proceeded to decide matter on merits.

24. In regard to question of delay on part of writ petitioner in approaching Court is concerned, it is to be noted that writ petitioner had indeed filed earlier writ petitions from year 2016 i.e., W.P. No.46766 of 2016 and others. Therefore, said conclusion may not be completely accurate. Be that as it may, it does not affect the ultimate decision arrived at by learned Single Bench, therefore, needs no specific adjudication as such.

25. Keeping in view facts and circumstances as above, we do not find any ground for setting aside decision, dated 07.05.2026, which is accordingly upheld. No other argument was addressed.

Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.