I \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV (Special Original Jurisdiction) jj TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL Ivg W TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 8929 OF 2025 Between: M/s. White Gold Mines And Minerals, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Office at 2-31-10, H.No.32, SBI Colony, Sector 7, MVP Colony, Vishakapatnam . ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Mines and Geology, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Director of Mines and Geology,, Ibrahimpatnam, NTR District, Andhra Pradesh 3. The District Mines and Geology Officer (FAC), Vizianagaram. 4. B. Ramesh, s/o Pardesi Rao Aged about 56 years. Residing at 48-6-57/1, Rama Talkies down, Sri Nagar, Vishakapatnam. ...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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring order of the 3rd respondent made in Demand No.2551/Q/2023 dated 15.02.202 in respect of Lease for Quartzite over an extent of 40.065 Ha in SY.No.11 of Marrivalasa Village, Dattirajeru Mandal, Vizianagaram District, seeking to recover the amounts as arbitrary. illegal, unjust, without jurisdiction, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, non-application of mind, violative of the procedure contemplated under AP Mines and Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, violative of judgments of Hon'ble courts, violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, violative of Constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same, further direct the authorities not to interfere with the lawful business activities of the petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the order of the 3rd respondent made in Demand No.2551/Q/2023 dated 15.02.202, by directing him to restore the online royalty permit system, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petittoner:SRI C V R RUDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel for the Respondent No.4: — The Court made the following: ORDER N APHC010173352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 8929/2025 Between: White Gold Mines And Minerals ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.C VR RUDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sudeepthi Potiuri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology. 2. It is contended that the 4th respondent was granted a mining lease for Quartzite over an extent of 40.065 Hectares in Sy. No. 11, Marrivalasam village, Dattirajeru Mandal, Vizianagaram District, for 20 years. Subsequently, the same was extended and is valid up to 3-12-2033. Later, the 4th respondent sought the transfer of the lease in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, after obtaining the necessary reports, the respondents have transferred the lease in favour of the petitioner, which is valid up to 31-03- 2033. 3. It is contended that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the ground that the department had received complaints against the petitioner that it had dispatched the mineral over and above the permitted quantity. It is stated that pursuant to the complaint received against the petitioner, a joint inspection was conducted by the department'stechnical staff and the revenue department. Based on their report, the show cause notice was issued. Thus, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why appropriate action should not be initiated for dispatching 1,46,699.75 MTS of mineral without valid dispatch permits. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner had submitted its explanation to the show cause notice. However, the petitioner was not served with the joint inspection report, which is said to have been obtained by the department. Without furnishing the required documents. based on which the respondents have come to a finding that the petitioner has dispatched the mineral without valid permits, raising the demand on petitioner is not only in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, but is also illegal. It is further argued that the 3rd respondent lacks jurisdiction to raise the impugned demand. 5. Considered the rival submissions. The show cause notice was issued basing on the report of joint inspection, said to have been conducted N by the department without issuing notice to the petitioner. Furthermore, placing reliance on the same without serving it on the petitioner violates the principles of natural justice. The consequent impugned order is also based I on the said joint inspection report obtained by the department. That apart, the impugned order has been passed, without considering the explanation of the petitioner except referring it to the same in the order. While discarding the contentions, the authority must give reasons for discarding the contentions. The principles of natural justice mandates that the material that formed the basis for passing any order against a person must be furnished along with the show cause to allow the person to submit effective explanation to the allegations. Having regard to the same this court is of view that the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned demand notice dated 15.02.202 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the 3'^'^ respondent. The 3'^'^ respondent is directed to pass orders afresh, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and the 3^'^ respondent is further directed to furnish a copy of the Joint Inspection Report conducted on 08.10.2024 to 10.10.2024. The entire exercise shall be completed within eight (8) weeks from the date of the receipt 6. of the order. With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A.VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIOff^FFICER 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Mines and Geology, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam Pradesh 3. The District Mines and Geology Officer (FAC), Vizianagaram. 4. B. Ramesh, s/o Pardesi Rao Aged about 56 years. Residing at 48-6-57/1 Rama Talkies down, Sri Nagar, Vishakapatnam. 5. One CC to SRI. C V R RUDRA PRASAD Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCS to GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three C.D.Copies To, NTR District, Andhra nm HIGH COURT DATE0:22/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.8929 of 2025 S> cr 5 28 MAY 2025 a CO ^ . Current oeouon . DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS