APHC010234302023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 12392 Between: 1. M/S. TRANSWORLD GARNET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT FLAT NO. 304, HNR ARCADE, NEAR MADHAVA MOTORS, SRIKAKULAM PRESIDENT, SRI N. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O K. NACHIMUTHU NADAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEA 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF MINES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHASTY BHAVAN, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (MINES AND GEOLOGY), DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VELAGAPUDI SECRETARIAT, 2ND BLOCK, TULLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DMG, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH DNO.7 TOWERS, D-BLOCK IBRAHIMPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY ADMG, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH SHANTI NAGAR COLONY, BALAGA, SRIKAKULAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 5. THE ANDHRA PRADESH MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 294 / 1D, 100 FT. ROAD, KANURU VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, VIJAYAWADA - 521137 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR. 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 12392 OF 2023 M/S. TRANSWORLD GARNET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT FLAT NO. 304, HNR ARCADE, NEAR MADHAVA MOTORS, SRIKAKULAM - 532 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT, SRI N. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O K. NACHIMUTHU NADAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. SRIKAKULAM. ...PETITIONER AND UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF MINES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHASTY BHAVAN, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 001. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (MINES AND GEOLOGY), DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VELAGAPUDI SECRETARIAT, 2ND BLOCK, TULLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DMG, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH DNO.7-104, 5TH FLOORS, SRI ANJANEYA BLOCK IBRAHIMPATNAM - 521 456, KRISHNA THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY ADMG, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH SHANTI NAGAR COLONY, BALAGA, SRIKAKULAM, ANDHRA PRADESH -532001 THE ANDHRA PRADESH MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 294 / 1D, 100 FT. ROAD, KANURU VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, 521137 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3458] THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA M/S. TRANSWORLD GARNET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT FLAT NO. 304, HNR ARCADE, NEAR MADHAVA 532 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT, SRI N. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O K. NACHIMUTHU ...PETITIONER UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF MINES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHASTY BHAVAN, DR. RAJENDRA THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (MINES AND GEOLOGY), DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VELAGAPUDI SECRETARIAT, THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DMG, GOVERNMENT 104, 5TH FLOORS, SRI ANJANEYA 521 456, KRISHNA THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY ADMG, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH SHANTI NAGAR COLONY, THE ANDHRA PRADESH MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 294 / 1D, 100 FT. ROAD, KANURU VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, 2 KM,J W.P.No.12392 of 2023 SRIKAKULAM. 7. M/S TRIMEX SANDS PRIVATE LIMITED, TRIMEX TOWER, NO 1 SUBBARAYA AVENUE, C P RAMASWAMY ROAD, ALWARPET, CHENNAI, TN, INDIA 600018. REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 8. DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY, REP BY ITS SECRETARY ANUSHAKTI BHAWAN MUMBAI- 440001 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G RAJA BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. N JEEVAN KUMAR 3. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following order: Heard Sri G.Raja Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Sudeepthi Potluri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology and Sri N.Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel for unofficial respondents. 2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of Beach Sand Mining and Garnet production. It applied for a mining lease for Beach Sand Minerals. The 1st respondent submitted its recommendations for grant of a mining lease to the petitioner for Garnet vide letter dated 06.09.2000 for approval of the 2nd respondent, in terms of Section 5(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Act 67 of 1957) and Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Accordingly, the 1st respondent granted a mining lease in favour of the petitioner company vide G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 05.01.2002. The mining lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 24.06.2002 3 KM,J W.P.No.12392 of 2023 and is valid up to 23.06.2032. The mineral specified in the lease is Garnet, the lease deed provides for the following conditions: “i. If, while mining garnet, the lessee comes across deposits of any prescribed substances/atomic minerals, the same shall be disposed of any after obtaining a license from the Department of Atomic Energy [Working of Mines, Minerals and Handling of Prescribed Substances] Rules, 1984. ii. The tailings containing the prescribed substances shall be disposed of only to another entity which holds a valid license under the aforesaid Rules to process/separate the prescribed substances.” 3. It is contended that the clauses of the lease deed contain two specific conditions to the effect that, during the course of mining operations, if the lessee comes across any deposits of prescribed substances or atomic minerals, the same shall be disposed of after obtaining a license from the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). Insofar as the tailings are concerned, the same shall have to be sold to another entity holding a license under the relevant Rules. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 12.04.2001 accorded approval under Section 5(1) of MMDR Act and Rule 27(3) of the AP Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, after consultation with Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). 4. It is further contended that, since the grant of the mining lease, the petitioner has been separating the mineral and the tailings as per the approved mining plan and the schemes approved by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner had requested for inclusion of non-garnet minerals in the lease; 4 KM,J W.P.No.12392 of 2023 upon the said requisition, the 1st respondent sought the approval of the 2nd respondent. While the same was pending, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 02.11.2018 suspending the mining operations. 5. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner filed W.P.No.41257 of 2018 and the operation of the proceedings dated 02.11.2018 were suspended. The mining operation of the petitioner company was stopped in the year 2019 as per the directions of the Government of India in F.No.11/2019-M.VI dated 01.03.2019 directing the Government of Andhra Pradesh to prematurely terminate all existing mineral concessions of Beach Sand Minerals held by private persons/companies under Section 4(a)(1) of MMDR Act, 1957. 6. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 08.03.2021 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the minerals confiscated on 21.11.2018 should not be shifted to the 5th respondent for further disposal. In response to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted explanation dated 28.03.2021, requesting for the documents relied upon by the 3rd respondent, while issuing the show-cause notice and the confiscation order dated 21.11.2018. The respondents did not supply copies of the same to the petitioner. 7. Challenging the show-cause notice dated 28.03.2021 and the alleged consequential symbolic paper confiscation of the minerals, the petitioner 5 KM,J W.P.No.12392 of 2023 approached this Court by way of W.P.No.10705 of 2021. The said writ petition was disposed of with the following directions: “(a) The petitioner shall make a fresh application to the 3rd respondent within two weeks mentioning the relevant documents which are required by it to submit its detailed reply to the show cause notice dated 08.03.2021 and also the Mediators Report dated 11.05.2021. (b) Within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of such application, the 3rd respondent shall furnish the documents sought for by the petitioner. (c) Thereupon, within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of documents, the petitioner shall submit its detailed reply to the show- cause notice dated 08.03.2021 and Mediators Report dated 11.05.2021 to the 3rd respondent. (d) Upon receiving such reply, the 3rd respondent shall fix a date and conduct enquiry and after hearing the petitioner, the 5th respondent and other concerned, pass appropriate orders in accordance with governing law and rules after duly considering the reply and submissions of respective parties within four (4) weeks from the date of holding enquiry. (e) Subject to the result of enquiry, the 3rd respondent and 5th respondent shall finalize the auction of the seized minerals. No costs.” 8. Pursuant to the said directions, the petitioner addressed an e-mail to the 3rd respondent requesting to furnish all the relevant documents. In response, the 3rd respondent furnished the said documents to the petitioner. After 6 KM,J W.P.No.12392 of 2023 receiving them, the petitioner submitted its reply dated 19.09.2022 to the show-cause notice dated 08.03.2021. 9. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent vide letter dated 11.10.2022 issued a notice for hearing, scheduled on 19.10.2022. In response to the said notice of hearing, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 17.10.2022 to the 3rd respondent seeking an adjournment. Thereafter, the hearing was rescheduled to 08.11.2022. 10. It is contended that the deponent of the present writ affidavit, who is the Vice President of the petitioner company had underwent medical treatment. Consequently, the petitioner once again addressed a letter to the 3rd respondent on 04.11.2022, seeking a further adjournment for a period of three weeks. However, without granting the adjournment sought, the respondents conducted the hearing ex-parte and passed orders on 21.11.2022, suspending mining operations, confiscation of minerals and handling over of the same to the 5th respondent. 11. It is contended that the said proceedings dated 21.11.2022 are without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. 12. It is further contended that the challenge was made to the proceedings dated 21.11.2022 vide W.P.No.41508 of 2022, this Court vide order dated 23.12.2022 disposed of the same, directing the 3rd respondent to give an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the hearing without reference to 7 KM,J W.P.No.12392 of 2023 the proceedings dated 21.11.2022. In terms of the same, the representatives of the petitioner appeared before the 3rd respondent submitting their case. The 3rd respondent further rejected the request made by the petitioner for withdrawal of the show-cause notice dated 08.03.2021 and confirming that the custody of the stocks to the 5th respondent and calling tenders for disposal of the stock. 13. It is contended that no confiscation has been taken place on 21.11.2018 and the respondents have no right on the non-magnetic tailings that they have sought to auction under the e-tender notification dated 19.05.2021. The minerals and tailings auctioned by the respondents were excavated prior to 15.03.2018. 14. The instant writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 31.03.2023 refusing to withdraw the show-cause notice dated 08.03.2021. 15. It is contended that to cover up the symbolic paper confiscation the officers of ADMD issued an e-mail to the petitioner company seeking to inspect the petitioner company on the next day itself. Immediately, next day i.e., on 11.05.2021, the 4th respondent has inspected the magnetic tailings weighing thousands of metric tonnes including monazite. 16. It is contended that from the said mail can be assumed that there was no confiscation as on 21.11.2018. Thus, the issuance of the show-cause 8 KM,J W.P.No.12392 of 2023 notice for shifting of the mineral confiscated on 21.11.2018 would not be sustainable. Thus, sought for set-aside of the impugned proceedings. 17. Sri G.Raja Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of erstwhile composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.18600 of 2010 dated 02.08.2010. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. M.P.P.Kavery Chetty1. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “24. There is no power conferred upon the State Government under the Said Act to exercise control over minor minerals after they have been excavated. The power of the State Government, as the subordinate rule-making authority, is restricted in the manner set out in Section 15. The power to control the sale and the sale price of a minor mineral is not covered by the terms of clause (o) of sub-section (1-A) of Section 15. This clause can relate only to the regulation of the grant of quarry and mining leases and other mineral concessions and it does not confer the power to regulate the sale of already mined minerals. 25. In our view, therefore, the High Court was clearly right in striking down Rules 8-D and 19-B as being beyond the purview of the rule-making power of the State Government. These rules having been struck down. The High Court was also right in striking down Government Order No. 214 to the extent that it prescribed these rules and Government Order No. 216 made in pursuance of these rules.” 1 1995(2) SCC 402 9 KM,J W.P.No.12392 of 2023 19. No counter affidavits have been filed by the respective respondents in the matter. 20. Considered the submissions, the main thrust of the arguments petitioner is that no confiscation of mineral had taken place on 21.11.2018 as alleged in the show-cause notice dated 08.03.2021. 21. From the impugned proceedings and the show-cause notice, except to say that there has been confiscation on 21.11.2018. No proceedings of the said confiscation have been placed before the Court. In the Reference column of the impugned proceedings and the show-cause notice there is no reference to the said proceedings of 21.11.2018. 22. Having regard to the same, this Court is of the view that in the absence of confiscation, the impugned proceedings and the show-cause notice dated 08.03.2021 which are in furtherance of the so called confiscation dated 21.11.2018, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings dated 31.03.2023 are set-aside. 23. In view of the foregoing, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 06.10.2025 BSK 10 KM,J W.P.No.12392 of 2023 140 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 12392 OF 2023 Date: 06.10.2025 BSK