APHC010326442018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] MONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14987/2018 Between: M/s.shiridi Sai Stone Crushers, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradelsh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARI SREEDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP) The Court made the following Order: This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “….to issue such appropriate writ, order or direction more so particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the inaction of the second respondent in granting stay of operation of the Demand Notice No.4441/Q1/2005, dated 17.6.2017 issued by the third respondent pending disposal of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order as arbitrary and illegal….” 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted quarry lease for Balast, Road Metal and boulders over an extent of 4.05 hectares (Ac.10.55) in Rs.No.90/2, Kondagudem Village, Devarapally Mandal, West Godavari district for a period of ten years, which is valid till 23.05.2017. The petitioner was granted another quarry lease on 13.03.2009 over an extent of Ac.1.259 in R.S.No.90/2, 88, 13/1, 13/8 of Kondagudem Village, Devarapally Mandal, West Godavari district, which is valid till 23.10.2013. After expiry of said lease, the petitioner surrendered the above said leased area to the 3rd respondent and on 23.12.2014, the 3rd respondent released the Security Deposit relating to the surrendered lease to the petitioner. When the Vigilance Department issued notices to the petitioner asking the petitioner to furnish proof of payment of ceiling surplus land amount, the petitioner filed W.P.No.37245 of 2016. During the pendency of the above said writ petition, the 3rd respondent rejected the application of the petitioner for issuing dispatch permits on 25.03.2017, hence the petitioner filed W.P.No.13238 of 2017 and this Court vide order dated 28.04.2017 granted interim direction to issue dispatch permits to the petitioner subject to petitioner furnishing unconditional bank guarantee for Rs.63,30,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioner furnished the same. While so, the 3rd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 13.04.2017 alleging certain violations in respect of the lease relating to 4.05 hectares in R.S.No.90/2 of 3 Kondagudem Village. The petitioner submitted explanation on 01.05.2017 requesting for certain documents. Without furnishing any documents, the 3rd respondent issued another show-cause notice dated 06.05.2017. The petitioner submitted explanation on 16.05.2017 requesting to furnish certain information and documents. Without furnishing any information and documents, the 3rd respondent issued demand notice vide No.4441/Q1/2005, dated 17.06.2017 under Rule 26 of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent under Rule 35 of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and sought for stay of operation of demand notice. Despite hearing arguments, the 2nd respondent did not passed any order. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. This Court, vide order, dated 26.04.2018, has granted stay of enforcement of the said demand notice. 4. The respondents filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and mainly contended that the petitioner filed appeal on 24.07.2017 before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent vide Memo No.21394/R2-2/AH/2017, dated 19.03.2018, directed the 3rd respondent to re-verify the pit measurement in the presence of Vigilance and 4 Enforcement Officials. It is further contended that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.37, Industries and Commerce (M.II) Department, dated 14.03.2017 issued certain amendments to A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 to prevent and control illegal mining and transportation of minor minerals. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No.19038/Vg/2015, dated 29.05.2016 issued orders delegating the powers. In view of the same, the 3rd respondent is authorized to issue demand notice to the petitioner for recovery of defaulted amount under A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. 5. Heard Mr.Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared virtually through video conferencing and Ms.P.Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, though the petitioner has applied for renewal of quarry lease, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology did not renewed the same, though the petitioner is entitled for the renewal. Further, the petitioner is not allowed to quarry the mineral also though the lease is deemed to be in force during the pendency of renewal application. He further submits that the petitioner filed appeal before the 5 2nd respondent and the same is pending till date. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to issue direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose the appeal filed by the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology does not refute to the above submissions. 8. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing the entire material on record, without going into the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition, directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 24.07.2017, in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 10. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J BMS