APHC010120962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 6263/2025 Between: Sri Madhava Crushers ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K NAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sudeepthi Potluri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology. 2. The Writ Petition is filed against the order of the 1st respondent in the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 3. It is contended that the order of the 1st respondent is without jurisdiction. 2 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted quarry lease for road metal and building stone over an extent of 4.627 hectors in Sy.No.427, 429/1& 2 of Venkatapuram Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District, vide proceedings No.6332/M4/2006, dated 31.05.2007. The said lease was in operation from 30.07.2007 to 29.07.2017. The petitioner has carried on mining operation in accordance with the lease permit granted in favour of the petitioner. 5. The 3rd respondent has issued show cause notice, dated 25.12.2017, alleging that the petitioner had conducted excavation beyond the permitted area and have excavated over and above the permitted quantity in 13,720 cub.mtrs., of road metal and transported without valid permits of 17,998 cub.mtrs of mineral. To the said show cause notice, it is stated that the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 08.01.2018 stating that the road metal was utilized for the Government work and he has not excavated any extent beyond the permitted area. The 3rd respondent vide proceedings has passed an order raising a demand of Rs.2,42,15,198/- from the date of receipt of the said notice. Against the said order, the petitioner filed revision petition before the 1st respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said order of the Revisional Authority is without referring to the contentions of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of this Court passed in W.P.No.12949 of 2020 wherein this Court has observed as follows: 3 “10. As set out in the judicial precedents referred to above, the 1st respondent is under a statutory obligation to pass reasoned orders after considering the grounds raised in the revision and the material in support of the contentions raised therein. The 1st respondent has to pass a speaking order by giving the reasons as to why the contentions deserves no consideration and for arriving at the decision.” 6. Considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order would reflect that the Revisional Authority while passing the impugned order did not refer to the objections of the petitioner filed, pursuant to the show cause notice. None of the grounds raised by the petitioners were considered by the Revision Committee while passing the impugned proceedings. 7. Having regard to the contentions advanced placing reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.12949 of 2020, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent for consideration of the matter after giving due opportunity of hearing the petitioner. Till disposal of the representation of the petitioner, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the demand raised. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 24.04.2025 MSI 4 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 6263/2025 Date: 24.04.2025 MSI