^^5 fl IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATt (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO V,,-' WRIT PETITION NO: 22382 OF 2024 Between: B. Venkata Rao, S/o. Sanyasi Rao, Aged about 42 years, Occ; Business D.No. 6-20, Gandivari Street, Parawada Village AND Mandal, Anakapalli District. ...PETIT4PNER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Mines' and Geology Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Director of Mines and Geology, State of A.P, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The District Mines and Geology Officer, AnakapalH Anakapalli District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^^ respondent in issuing the Demand Notice No. 3007/Q/2018, dated 06-09-2024, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unconstitutional and contrary to Mines and Minerals (Development AND Regulation) Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules 1966 and the rules made there under apart from being violation of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300A of the constitution of India and consequently call for records in the demand Notice No. 3007^2018, dated 06-09-2024 and set aside the same. \ lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances ■‘’/ stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court f '■ - may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the demand notice No. 3007/0/2018, dated 06-09-2024 and direct the 3^'^ respondent to issue dispatch permits for transportation of Building Stone and Gravel forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. ■■ .V •t Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K. NAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES GEOLOGY The Court made the following: ORDER . APHC010430812024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO « WRIT PETITION NO: 22382/2024 Between: B Venkata Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KNAVEEN KUMAR 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 the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “ to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3’^’* respondent in issuing the Demand Notice NO.3007/Q/2018, dated 06-09-2024 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unconstitutional and contrary to Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and the rules made there under apart from being violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently call for records in the demand Notice No^3007/Q/2018, dated 06-09-2024 and set aside the same ” 2 Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was granted quarry lease for building stone and gravel over an extent of 2.986 Hectors in Survey No.11 of Paravada Village and Mandal, Anakapalli district (Visakhapatnam district) vide proceedings No.1116-6/QIV/2019, dated 30.08.2019 for a period of ten years by the then Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam and the work order was issued by the then Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, I Anakapalli vide proceedings No.3007/Q/2018, dated 04.10.2019. The said lease is valid for the period 04.10.2019 to 03.10.2029. While things stood thus, the 3'^'^ respondent issued a show-cause notice No.3007/Q/2018, dated 18.05.2024 stating that the petitioner had excavated total quantity is 2,79,525.45 Cum within the leased area and made further allegations and directed the petitioner to submit explanation to show cause as to why action should not be initiated as per the findings mentioned within 15 days from the date of receipt of said receipt notice. The petitioner submitted explanation on 14.08.2024 and 19.08.2024 contending that there are old working pits present 2. inside and outside the leased area. Without considering the explanation, the 3'"'^ respondent issued Demand Notice vide No.3007/Q/2018, dated 06.09.2024 directing the petitioner to pay to penalty along with Seigniorage fee amount within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of demand notice; failing which, necessary action will be initiated under provisions of APMMC Rules, 1966. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3 This Court, vide order, dated 04.10.2024, directed both the parties to maintain Status-quo. 3. 4. Heard Mr.K.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.P.Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, for the respondents. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the demand notice issued by the 3^*^ respondent is predetermined with wrong assumptions and calculations without coordinating with other department is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the probabilities of the case. He further submits that the 3^^^ respondent in relying upon an inspection conducted with predetermined basing on the petition filed by a local politician and without conducting any enquiry is in gross violation of Principles of natural justice. He further submits that, without considering the 5. rd explanation of the petitioner dated 14.08.2024 and 19.08.2024, the 3 respondent has issued the impugned demand notice. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the impugned demand notice. 6. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed for grant of any relief in the Writ Petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 7. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the 3'^'^ respondent has issued impugned demand notice without considering the explanation of the petitioner and without giving any opportunity for personal hearing. Hence, the impugned demand notice is liable to be set aside. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the matter by remanding back to the respondents for fresh consideration. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The Demand Notice vide NO.3007/Q/2018, dated 06.09.2024 issued by the 3'^'^ respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the 3"^ respondent with a direction to conduct fresh enquiry and pass appropriate reasoned orders, by considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and after affording ample opportunity to the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- M.PRABHAKARA ^SSIST^T REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER RAO //TRUE COPY// To 1. The Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Director of Mines and Geology, State of A.P, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The District Mines and Geology Officer, Anakaf^, Anakapalli District. 4. One CC to Sri K. Naveen Kbmar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Mines ^d Geology, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 6. Three C.D. Copies. HIGH COURT DATED:20/01/2025 ORDER X 0 3 MAR 2025 ^ . Current beciion % WP.No.22382 of 2024 DISPOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS