APHC010086632016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 13624/2016 Between: C. Keerthi, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A CHANDRA SHAKER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP) The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue an appropriate Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology – Respondent No.3, in issuing Demand notice No.21(A)/V&E/Vg- Gooty/2012 dt.05-10-2012 and the orders of the 1st respondent vide Memo No.11429/M.I(1)/2015-5 Dt.10-03- 2016 by directing the petitioner to pay normal seigniorage fee along with Two times penalty as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unconstitutional, in violation of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act 1957 and A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966….” 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted quarry lease by Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Tadipatri for Road Metal and building Stone over an extent of 1.700 Hectares in Survey No.107/4 of Chakkrayapeta Village, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapuramu district, for a period of ten years commencing from 13.02.2008 to 12.02.2018 vide license No.3651/Q2/2007, dated 13.02.2008. While so, on 22.12.2011, the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Anantapur Unit along with Mines and Geology Officials and Mandal Revenue Officials visited quarry premises and calculated total quantity to have been quarried as 9,438 Cubic meters. Pursuant to the same, the 2nd respondent issued demand notice vide No.21(A)V&E/Vg-Gooty/2012, dated 05.10.2012 observing that the petitioner paid royalty for 2,134 Cubic metres and came to a conclusion that the evaded quantity measured as 7,304 Cubic metres and directed the petitioner to pay the normal seigniorage fee along with five times penalty within fifteen days from the date of receipt of demand notice; failing which, action will be initiated under provisions of APMMC Rules, 1966. Questioning the same, the petitioner preferred revision before the 1st respondent-Government on 21.02.2013 by paying the normal Seigniorage fee for 7,304 Cubic meters at the rate of Rs.50/- per Cubic metre., and a total of Rs.3,65,200/-. Thereafter, the petitioner received Memo No.2762/M.II(1)/2013-1, dated 25.02.2013, wherein the Director of Mines and Geology was requested to send the brief history and 3 facts of the case for disposal of revision petition. Surprisingly, the petitioner received copy of disposal of Revision Petition under Rule 35-A of APMMC Rules, 1966 vide Memo No.2762/M.I(1)/2013-2, dated 07.05.2015 and the Revisional Authority has partly convinced with the contentions of revision petitioner and decided to award two times penalty and directed to pay two times penalty together with normal seigniorage fee, if normal seigniorage fee not paid earlier, within a period of thirty days from the date of issue of order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18780 of 2015 before this Court and the same was allowed vide order dated 25.06.2015 setting aside the Memo of the 1st respondent and directed the 1st respondent to afford personal hearing to the petitioner and dispose the matter as per law. Inspite of orders of this Court, the 1st respondent without giving any opportunity, simply incorporating the reference of the writ in the order and extracting the contents of the memo and the petition, mechanically passed the impugned order vide memo No.11429/M.I(1)2015-5, dated 10.03.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Though the writ petition is filed in the year 2016, the respondents have not filed any counter till date. Therefore, the right of filing of counter is forfeited as per Rule 12(1) of Writ Proceeding Rules, 1977. 4 4. Heard Mr.A.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.P.Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the 1st respondent acted mechanically without proper application of mind and without considering the facts in proper perspective. He further submits that the revision petition is disposed of without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to submit her case in utter violation of doctrine “Audi alteram partem” and against the principles of natural justice. The revisional order is totally in violation of principles of natural justice and passed in a casual and mechanical manner. The petitioner has not violated any provisions of law nor carried out quarrying of metal above the sanctioned/grant. Without verifying the facts of the case and giving an proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing, the Revisional Authority has mechanically confirmed and passed orders directing the petitioner to pay normal seigniorage fee along with two times penalty. He further submits that the 1st respondent after a lapse of two years without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and without following the principles of natural justice has passed the impugned order vide Memo No.2762/M.I(2)/2013-2, dated 07.05.2015 and the same was set aside by this Court vide order dated 25.06.2015 passed in W.P.No.18780 of 2015. Again the 1st respondent without giving any 5 opportunity to the petitioner has passed the present impugned order mechanically, which is contrary to the provisions of law. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 6. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed for grant of any relief in the present writ petition and prays to dismiss the same. 7. Perused the record. 8. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned Memo vide No.11429/M.I(1)/2015-5, dated 10.03.2016 with the following observations: “As seen from the material placed on record, a quantity of 9438 Cbms of Mineral was excavated as per the pit measurements. Out of it, a quantity of 2134 Cbms of mineral was covered by the permits and the balance of 7304 Cbms was not covered by permits. Hence, the Revision Authority has come to a conclusion that the Revision Applicant has dispatched 7304 Cbms of Road Metal and Building Stone illegally without payment of Seignorage Fee for which the Revision Applicant is unable to pay penalties, under Rule 26(3)(ii) of APMMC Rules, 1966. Therefore, the Revision Authority has decided to award two times penalty besides the Normal Seigniorage Fee and the Revision Applicant is hereby directed to pay two times penalty besides payment of Seigniorage Fee within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. This Revision Petition is disposed off accordingly under Rule 35-A of APMMC Rules, 1966.” 9. In view of a close scrutiny of the impugned order dated 10.03.2016 shows, as rightly argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, the 1st respondent has issued proceedings, without conducting any enquiry. 6 10. Therefore, it is needless to emphasize the order is devoid of reasons and bereft of following the principles of natural justice. In similar circumstances, a learned Single Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, having found that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner therein and his explanation was not considered by the authority, set aside the impugned order of termination of the petitioner therein from the service and directed the concerned authority to pass appropriate order after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner. The said order squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. 11. In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others1 regarding maintainability of writ petition in the context of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, the Apex Court held thus: “14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose". 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in atleast three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged (emphasis supplied).” 1AIR 1999 SC 22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998 7 12. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing the entire material on record, it appears that, the 1st respondent has mechanically passed the impugned order simply incorporating the reference of the contents in the memo and the petition, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present writ petition by remanding back the matter to the respondents for fresh consideration. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The impugned proceedings vide Memo No.11429/M.I(1)/2015-5, dated 10.03.2016 issued by the 1st respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate reasoned orders, after affording ample opportunity of hearing of the petitioner, 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. 14. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 07.02.2025 BMS