APHC010419242024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 21588 OF 2024 Between: 1. M/S. DHANUNJAYA ENTERPRISES,, 48-1-39/11,FLAT.NO.T-1 AND 2, KKALYENVIHAR APARTMENT, SRINAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT REP BY ITS PARTNER MR.P.SUBBA RAJU ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPT, OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, SECRETARIAT, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. SRI ANJANEYA TOWERS, D NO. 7-104, B-BLOCK 5TH AND 6TH FLOORS, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA ANDHRA PRADESH- 521456. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, GOVT, OF ANDHRA PRADESH SRI ANJANEYA TOWERS, D. NO. 7-104, B-BLOCK 5TH AND 6TH FLOORS, LBRAHIMPATNAM,VIJAYAWADA ANDHRA PRADESH - 521456. 3. THE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER DM0, O/O. THE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY, NANDYAL, KRANTHI NAGAR, TELUGU PETA, NANDYALA, ANDHRA PRADESH- 518502. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. UTTARA LEGAL Counsel for the Respondents: 1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY 2 The Court made the following order: Heard Sri K.S.Naveen, learned counsel appearing for M/s. Uttara Legal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sudeepthi Potluri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents. 2. The grievance of petitioner is against the demand notice dated 29.08.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that before issuance of impugned proceedings, a show-cause notice dated 12.06.2024, was issued to the petitioner alleging violation of the provisions of Rule 26(3)(ii) and Rule 34(1) of APMMC Rules,1966 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why action shall not be initiated for alleged misuse of Transit Forms. In response to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 21.06.2024 and also annexed certain documents showing the details of the Transit Forms and bills. However, the respondents failed to consider the same and levied the demand. It is further contended that so long as the petitioner has discharged the mineral revenue dues to the state through the governmental portals, the respondents demand that the petitioner pay the mineral revenue once again with a five times penalty and raising the demand without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner in a correct perspective, is unsustainable. 3 4. The petitioner contends that Rule 26(3)(i) can be invoked only when no documentary proof is provided by the person purchasing the stock or consuming the purchased mineral. When the respondent No.3 himself has all the material before him that the petitioner had obtained transit forms obtained from OMEPS Portal for 3087.5MTs after payment of mineral revenue, the provisions of Section 26(3)(ii) are not attracted thereto; therefore, the proceedings of the 3rd respondent are thus without jurisdiction. 5. It is further argued that the impugned proceedings would reflect that without verification of records and on the pretext that the petitioner did not deny the allegation regarding the misuse of permits and the petitioner did not produce concrete evidence that he had supplied the mineral to the consignees against a duly generated transit forms, the Divisional Mines and Geology Officer has directed the petitioner to pay the demand alleging violation of Rules 26(3)(ii) and 34(1) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short, “the Rules”). 6. Considered the submissions. The petitioner in support of his contentions annexed the details of transit forms, and contends that the details of the same are the part of the record of the respondents and without verifying the same, the respondent No.3 has passed the impugned proceedings. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court deems it appropriate to set-aside the impugned demand and remand the matter to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner 4 and, the petitioner is also at liberty to file a detailed reply by annexing relevant documents upon which the petitioner places reliance. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 24.12.2025 BSK 5 24 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 21588 OF 2024 Date: 24.12.2025 BSK