APHC010305972024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 15484/2024 Between: ROCK AND STONE, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR GOTTIPATI SUNEETHA, FACTORY LOCATED AT SY. NO.72/5A OF YELURU VILLAGE PODILI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. R/O D. NO.2-4, JAYAPRAKASH COLONY, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523001 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF MINES, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. THE DIVISIONAL MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P MALLIKHARJUNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in confiscating the petitioners Firm vide its order dated 09.05.2024 without giving the personal hearing and passing the consequential order of demand notice issued by the 4th 2 respondent dated 24.05.2024 against the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice and the rules governed by the G.O.Ms.No.17, dated 29.01.2018, consequently set aside the confiscation order dated 09.05.2024, and demand notice dated 24.05.2024.” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology would submit that the alleged confiscation is done in accordance with the Rules. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that, under the Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 2018, G.O.Ms.No.17 dated 29.01.2018 was issued and under Rule 11, there is a remedy of appeal and under Rule 12 there is a further remedy of revision and that the Petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by Rule 11 of the Rules. 3. Sri P.Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, recording the same, the Court may pass appropriate orders. 4. In that view, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy by preferring appeal before the Appropriate Authority according to governing Rules and Law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:08.05.2025 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.15484 of 2024 Dt.08.05.2025 Dinesh