APHC010600792024 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: 31342/2024 Between: Vallu Sandeep and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P L NARASIMHA 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 the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order direction declaring the Demand Notice No.4670/M2/87, dated 20-06-2024 issued by the 3rd respondent herein as highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1966 and the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Amendment Act, 2015 and 2 consequently set-aside the Demand Notice No.4670/M2/87, dated 20-06-2024 issued by the 3rd respondent herein…….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that, when the petitioners were working in M/s.Sri Sudarsana Constructions, which is a MDL holder at Molakalapundla and Orupalli Villages of Sydapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore district, the petitioners received Show-Cause Notice vide No.4670/M2/87, dated 20.05.2024 from the 3rd respondent to show-cause as to why action shall not be initiated against them under 26(2)(i) & (ii) of APMMC Rules, 1966 for violating the Rule 5 of APMMC Rules, 1966 read with Section 4(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 2015 by conducting illegal excavation in subject area within seven days from the date of receipt of notice; failing which, necessary action will be initiated against under Rule 26(2)(i) of APMMC Rules, 1966 and also the mineral stocked at the premises will be disposed in the auction. On receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioners submitted a detailed explanation dated 12.06.2024 through an Advocate stating that the petitioners are no way concerned with the illegal excavation in the leased area and the petitioners did not involved in the illegal quarrying activities in any manner and they are only working in Sri Sudarasana Constructions. Without considering the explanation, the 3rd respondent issued Demand Notice bearing No.4670/M2/87, dated 20.06.2024 directing the petitioners to pay the penalty amount of Rs.32,11,00,374/- imposed under Rule 26(2)(i) of APMMC Rules, 1966 within fifteen (15) days 3 from the date of receipt of demand notice; failing which, necessary action will be initiated by proposing criminal action under Cr.P.C. 379, in addition to the collection of the said penalty by imposing Revenue Recovery Act, 1884. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard Mr.P.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.P.Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, for the respondents. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the 3rd respondent has issued impugned demand notice without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners dated 12.06.2024 and without giving an opportunity of personal hearing, which is illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that the 3rd respondent issued impugned demand notice simply stating that “the reply given by them is not satisfactory and liable for penalisation under Rule 26(2)(i) of APMMC Rules, 1966”. Except that, nothing has been stated in the demand notice. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners requests this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the impugned demand notice. 5. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed for grant of any relief in the Writ Petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 4 6. 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 3rd respondent has issued impugned demand notice simply stating that, the reply of the petitioners is not satisfactory. Except that nothing has been stated in the demand notice. Further, the petitioners were not given 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. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The Demand Notice vide No.4670/M2/87, dated 20.06.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent with a direction to conduct fresh enquiry and pass appropriate reasoned orders, by considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners dated 12.06.2024 and after affording ample opportunity to the petitioners, 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. 8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J BMS