IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA;^lgGH WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE * PRESENT o HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 832 OF 2024 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 23.09.2023 in W.P. No. 29626 of 2022 on the file of the High Court. Between: P.V.V.Surya Kumar, S/o. Pattabhi Ramarao, Aged about 42 years, R/o. 3-28-26/9,444, Krishna Nagar Besides Nannapaneni Kalyana Mandapam, Pattabhi Puram, Guntur,Guntur District-522006, A.P. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Industries And Commerce (Mines II) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. The Director of Mines and Geology, Department of Mines and Geology Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur, Guntur District. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Department of Mines and Geology, Guntur, Guntur District. M/s. The PerecharlaTella Quarry Vaddera Workers Limited, Represented by its President, Mr. T. VenkataSwamy, Pericharla Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 4 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 23.09.2023 made in WP No.29626 of 2022, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI C.V.R.RUDRA PRASAD REPRESENTING ^ SMT. G.N.UMA RANI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR MINES & GEOLOGY^ Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI P.SREE RAMULU NAIDU The Court made the following: ORDER ■KCJ ^ 3?C7 Writ Jlppeaf9^0.832 of2024 1 APHC010550742023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3483] WRIT APPEAL NO: 832/2024 Between: P V V Surya Kumar ...APPELLANT AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1.G N UMA RANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P SREE RAMULU NAIDU 2. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE JUDGMENT fPer Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 23.09.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.29626 of 2022, the petitioner in the said writ petition preferred this intra court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. The facts that led to filing of this Writ Appeal, in brief, are as follows: WCJ ^ ‘KCJ JlppeaC!N'o.832 of2024 2 (a) The petitioner was granted quarry lease for a period of ten (10) years and accordingly a lease deed was executed on 27.05.2012, however, he was forced to stop quarrying operations due to Covid-19. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur issued show cause notice dated 19.08.2020 pointing out certain breaches, for which the petitioner submitted explanation on 03.09.2020. Thereafter, the quarry lease of the petitioner was determined by proceedings No.2180/Ql/2020, dated 23.09.2020. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed appeal and respondent no.2-The Director of Mines and Geology dismissed the same on 04.02.2021. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.4979 of 2021 and the same was disposed of remanding the matter to respondent no.2 for consideration of the matter afresh. Pursuantly, upon receipt of further reply of the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing and considering the joint inspection report of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology; respondent no.2, dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, the writ petition covered under the orders impugned in this writ appeal has been filed. (b) The respondent no.3-Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, filed counter-affidavit, denying the material averments of the writ affidavit, inter ^CJ<€'RCJ Writ_^ppeaf!N'o.832 of2024 3 a/fa contending that respondent no.2, upon careful consideration of the joint inspection report and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the dismissed the appeal vide proceedings impugned in the writ petition. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology submitted proposals for grant of quarry lease in respect of the subject property and the application of respondent no.5 has been recommended for grant of quarry lease for a period of 10 years, subject to the outcome of W.P.No.4979 of 2021. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued amendments for grant of quarry lease and introduced auction system vide G.O.Ms.No.13 and framed auction guidelines vide G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 14.03.2022. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. petitioner. (c) The learned single Judge, upon considering the material available on record and upon hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties; dismissed the writ petition (d) Challenging the dismissal order of the learned single Judge, this Writ Appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner, on the grounds that the learned single Judge erred in noticing that the appellate authority, without following principles of natural justice, ignoring the fact that the Court was 'Writ JlppeaC7^0.832 of2024 deciding the appeal, conducted a cfe novo enquiry, and, relying on fresh report submitted by the authority that had become functus officio and that too without furnishing the documents relied on by the authority, took a decision in the appeal, much against the principles of administrative besides being violative of principles of natural justice; that the appellate authority travelled beyond the scope of the appeal and instead of confining Itself in either dismissing or allowing the appeal, granted relief to respondent law no.5, which had not independently approached the appellate Authority, however, the learned single Judge could not properly appreciate the said plea taken by the appellant; that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate that non-furnishing copy of the joint inspection report and material evidence relied on by the appellate authority in dismissing the appeal would be fatal and the decision of the appellate authority in dismissing the appeal contravention of the principles of natural justice; that the learned single Judge erred in rejecting the renewal of lease on the ground that the same cannot be treated as a consequential relief and a separate writ petition has to be filed; since the same is opposed to well settled principles of law. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Appeal. is in utter J{CJei‘RCJ Writ JippeaC9^0.832 of2024 5 3. Heard Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel, representing Smt.G.N.Uma Rani, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology for official respondents and Sri P.Sree Ramulu Naidu, learned counsel for respondent no.5. 4. For expediency, the parties, hereinafter, will be referred to with their status in the writ petition. 5. Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit as well as grounds of appeal, would contend that the appellate authority, by placing reliance on the Joint Inspection Report of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology and remarks of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, copies of which were not at all furnished to the petitioner, passed the orders impugned in the writ petition, in utter ignorance of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel would further contend that the appellate authority went beyond the breaches pointed out in the show cause notice while passing the orders determining the lease granted in favour of the petitioner. He would further contend that the entire episode of issuance of show cause notice and passing orders determining the lease by primary authority and dismissal of appeal by the Writ Jlppeaf^0.832 of2024 appellate authority was held to benefit respondent no.5 at his behest and the same is perceivable from the fact that though he was not a party to the show cause notice, he was impleaded as party respondent to the appeal that too without passing any separate orders for his impleadment. The learned counsel would further contend that the orders passed in appeal by respondent no.2 are bereft of reasons and the explanations submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice were not considered while passing the orders. He further contended that despite the orders passed in writ petition No.4979 of 2021 directing the appellate authority to pass orders afresh considering the facts and objections raised by the petitioner in his explanation, the appellate authority conducted de novo enquiry and relying on fresh report submitted by the authority that became functus officio and that too without furnishing copy of that report to the petitioner, passed the orders in the appeal, in utter violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the orders passed by primary as well es appellate authority are liable to be set aside. The learned counsel would further contend that the learned single Judge erred in holding that non- furnishing copy of the report relied on by the appellate authority for passing orders impugned in writ petition would not be said to be fatal, the petitioner has submitted his explanation to all the breaches pointed out in the TfCJ ez: ‘KCJ Writ JippeafJfo.832 of2024 1 said report. The learned counsel would finally contend that as the learned single Judge erroneously held that the appellate authority had followed the procedure while passing the orders impugned in the writ petition despite the factum of violation of principles of natural justice is clearly visible and therefore, the orders passed by the learned single Judge are liable to be set aside and consequently the writ petition has to be allowed by quashing the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as primary authority. 6. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology and Sri P.Sree Ramulu Naidu, learned counsel for respondent no.5, in unison justified the orders impugned in this writ appeal so also the orders impugned in the writ petition. They would further contend that in the absence of any pleading as to the prejudice caused to the petitioner on account of non-furnishing of the reports, the decision making process would not get vitiated on that count. In further, the learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology would contend that the appellate authority had given ample reasons for determining the quarry lease of the petitioner, since the petitioner did not undertake quarry operations in accordance with the guidelines. The learned Government Pleader would further contend that the learned single Judge Writ Ji-ppeaCWo.832 of2024 8 upon meticulous appreciation of the facts of the case had rightly dismissed the writ petition. The said orders require no interference in this writ appeal and therefore, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ appeal. 7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is fairly settled that while dealing with a writ, the court should consider whether the decision making process was in accordance with the rules. The court will also consider whether the decision was arbitrary or capricious, and if it was based on materials on record. Additionally, the court will consider whether the decision was based on procedural fairness, which is essential for reaching a correct decision and whether the decision was based on the law, and if it was in accordance with the Constitution. While doing so, the writ Court should not act as appellate authority and substitute its opinion, if the authority passes the order observing procedural fairness. 9. Show cause notice dated 19.08.2020 issued by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology would go to show that as many as eight (08) breaches detailed therein were found when the Technical Assistant and Surveyor 'Writ JlppeaCiNb.832 of2024 inspected the quarry of the petitioner on 13.07.2020 and pursuant to the determination proposals submitted by the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, the said show cause notice was issued requesting the petitioner to show cause within fifteen (15) days as to why action should not be taken for determination of quarry lease. In response, the petitioner submitted explanation on 03.09.2020. 10. Thereafter, the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, having found that except two (02), the petitioner had not rectified the other breaches pointed out in the show-cause notice and further the explanation submitted by him is not satisfactory, determined the quarry licence vide proceedings dated 23.09.2020. The appeal preferred against the said determination orders dismissed by the Director of Mines & Geology vide proceedings dated was 04.02.2021. 11. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.4979 of 2021 and the same was allowed setting aside the orders of respondent no.2 and the matter is remitted back to respondent no.2 for fresh consideration, upon appreciation of all the objections raised by the petitioner in his explanation as well as grounds of appeal. Thereafter, respondent no.2- ^CJ ei ‘RCJ Writ ^ppea['Ko.832 of2024 10 Director of Mines and Geology, vide proceedings dated 16.08.2022 dismissed the appeal petition filed by the petitioner. 12. A perusal of the proceedings dated 16.08.2022 would go to show that subsequent to the orders passed in Writ Petition No.4979 of 2021, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and to submit further reply to the show cause notice and the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology was directed to inspect the subject area and submit factual report. The said proceedings would further disclose that a joint inspection was conducted on 06.07.2022 and respondent no.3-Deputy Director of Mines & Geology submitted a report. 13. The main thrust of the argument advanced on behalf of petitioner is that the appellate authority, instead of disposing of the appeal petition as per orders passed in Writ Petition No.4979 of 2021, had conducted de novo enquiry afresh utilizing the services of Deputy Director, who is the primary authority that had determined the lease and thus became functus officio. Further, the petitioner was not furnished with copy of joint inspection report and remarks, which were made basis by the appellate authority for passing orders impugned in the writ petition. 'Writ JlppeaC^0.832 of2024 11 14. In Viveka Nand Sethi vs. Chairman, J&K Bank Limited, the Honourable Supreme Court held thus: "22 The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It cannot be applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case." 15. In K.L.Tripathi v. State Bank of India^, the Honourable Supreme Court held thus: It is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to when the principles of natural justice are to apply, nor as to their scope and extent. ... There must also have been some real prejudice to the complainant; there is no such thing as a merely technical infringement of natural justice. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject matter to be dealt with, and so forth." 16. Keeping in view the above observations, the material available on record has to be scanned to ascertain as to whether there was violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner. 17. In the instant case, the material would indicate that the primary authority had issued show cause notice pointing out breaches committed by the petitioner in doing quarry operations and the petitioner submitted \ (2005) 5 see 337 ^ (1984) 1 see 43 Writ JlppeaC^0.832 of2024 12 explanation answering all the breaches pointed out in the said show cause notice. 18. No doubt, after the matter was remitted back, the appellant authority, directed the Deputy Director to inspect the subject area and submit factual report on the lease held by the petitioner and accordingly a joint inspection was conducted and the Deputy Director submitted a report. The petitioner sought to contend that the action of the appellate authority would amount to conducting a de novo enquiry and non-furnishing of the reports would result in violation of principles of natural justice. 19. The direction given to Deputy Director to inspect is only to ascertain the actual position obtaining as on that day and therefore, the same does not amount to conducting any de novo enquiry as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the proceedings impugned in the writ petition would indicate that the explanation given by the petitioner to the show cause notice qua the remarks of the joint inspection team were considered for passing the said proceedings. Since the joint inspection was conducted only to ascertain the real situation obtaining as on that date and no new breaches were pointed out therein except the ones stated in the show cause notice, non-furnishing copy of the same would not amount to violation TfCJ ei ‘RCJ 'Writ JippeaC!Ko.832 of2024 13 The record would disclose that the petitioner the breaches pointed out in the show cause opportunity of being heard and therefore, of principles of natural justice had submitted explanation to notice and he was afforded an due compliance of the procedure to be followed. there was 20. The respondent no.2-appellate authority had dealt with all the and the grounds of appeal, aspects raised by the petitioner in explanations passed proceedings determining the quarry rejected. Further, as rightly held by respondent no.5 in the appeal was filed objections refuting addition. lease and the contention contra is the learned single Judge, addition of within the notice of the petitioner, since he to set aside the orders 21. The main prayer in the writ petition was appellate authorities whereby and passed by the preliminary as well as whereunder his quarry lease was determined, whereas the consequential of the Deputy Director dated 26.08.2022 submitted by the petitioner for renewal of quarry relief sought is to declare the orders whereby the application lease was rejected. The learned single Judge is right in observing that the separate cause of action, the consequential relief sought, since based on same cannot be termed as a separate writ petition challenging the renewal rejection orders. consequential relief and the petitioner has to file HCJ <£ ‘RCJ 'Writ Jippea[!Nb.832 of2024 14 22. As already held above, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should only ascertain as to whether the decision making process was in accordance with the rules and in view of the findings given above that there is no infraction of the principles of natural justice or procedural impropriety in passing the orders impugned in the writ petition, nothing remains for us to deal with in this writ appeal. 23. The learned single Judge has considered the aspects in proper perspective and rightly dismissed the writ petition. There are no valid grounds to interfere with the said order. Therefore, the writ appeal deserves dismissal. 24. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. OneCCto Smt. G.N.Uma Rani, Advocate [OPUC] ^ 2. Two CCs to GP for Mines & Geology, High Court of Andhra Pra^sh. [OUT] 3. One CC to Sri P.Sree Ramulu Naidu, Advocate. [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies. gi HIGH COURT DATED: 19/02/2025 ORDER WA.No.832 of 2024 ,== 01 MAR 2025 m . Current Section ^ DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS