APHC010043092026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2682/2026 Between: 1. SRI K. VENKATA KRISHNA REDDY, S/O SRI K. NARAYANA REDDY, H.NO.15-1334, VIJAYANAGAR COLONY, TADIPATRI TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -515411. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (MINES) INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522238 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 521456 3. THE REGIONAL VIGILANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, ROAD NO. 3, RAMALINGESWARA NAGAR, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH - 518003 4. THE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, NANDYAL, ANDHRA PRADESH - 518501 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring that the impugned Demand Notice No. 1232/QL/2018 dated 30.12.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 4 2 herein thereby determining, levying and demanding a sum of Rs. 17,84,102/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand One Hundred and Two Only) under various heads purportedly under Rule 34(1) of the AP Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (as amended till date), without furnishing the documents requested by the Petitioner vide representation dated 25.10.2025 and without considering the substantive jurisdictional and procedural objections raised therein, as sheer arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction besides being violative of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, AP Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (as amended till date), and rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1 )(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and/or pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to SUSPEND the Demand Notice No. 1232/QL/2018 dated 30.12.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 4 herein and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 2. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.2682 OF 2026 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring that the impugned Demand Notice No.1232/QL/2018 dated 30.12.2025 issued by the Respondent No.4 herein thereby determining levying and demanding a sum of Rs.17,84,102/- Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand One Hundred and Two Only under various heads purportedly under Rule 341 of the AP Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 as amended till date without furnishing the documents requested by the Petitioner vide representation dated 25.10.2025 and without considering the substantive jurisdictional and procedural objections raised therein as sheer, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction, besides being violative of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 AP Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 as amended till date and rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders...” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 09.09.2025 directing the petitioner to submit documentary evidence for having paid the seigniorage fee to the Mines and Geology department for the excavated and transported quantity of lime stone slabs (black). For which, the petitioner submitted a representations dated 23.09.2025 and 25.10.2025 to the respondent No.4 requesting for furnishing 4 of the documents which were mentioned at the impugned notice for submission the same along with explanation as sought for. Considering the representations submitted by the petitioner, the respondents provided the subject documents. On perusal of the documents it was found that the impugned determination and assessment was made basing on the some other documents. Immediately, the petitioner again submitted a representation for furnishing two other documents which were narrated and which are the basis to arrive such determination, for furnishing detailed written explanation. But, without furnishing the documents, the respondent No.4 issued a demand notice dated 30.12.2025 demanding the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.17,84,102/- against the excavation and transportation of lime stone slabs (black) without payment of seigniorage fee from the subject area under Section 34(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Hence, the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the entire case of the petitioner herein is evolved round around the impugned demand notice on the ground that the documents which were sought for are not furnished and without furnishing the same, the impugned demand notice was issued by respondent No.4. He further submits that initially, the petitioner requested two documents by way of representation dated 23.09.2025 and the same were furnished, but again the petitioner also requested another two documents after perusal of the documents furnished to him. In the mean while, the impugned demand notice came to be passed. He 5 further submits that if the petitioner really intend to submit any explanation he would have been submitted explanation with whatever material he posses with him to answer queries to the demand notice and if necessary he can sought for further clarification or documents for submission of detailed explanation. But without doing so, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that the petitioner submitted a representation requesting for seeking documents to submit explanation that are required to answer the queries of the demand notice. It is further observed that the present subject demand notice was issued without furnishing documents as demanded by the petitioner herein. It is settled law once the authorities intend to exercise their power conferred under the Act, it should be subject to principles of natural justice, which is basic tenet of law of administration. If that is so, when the petitioner requested for documents which are basis for determination of the subject demand notice, it is most appropriate on part of the authority to furnish the same in order to submit a detailed explanation by the petitioner. In the instant case, it appears that the respondent authorities not acted fairly and without observing principles of natural justice. It is further observed that the impugned demand notice came to be passed in view of lacuna observed by this Court while exercising power by the executive authority. Therefore, this Court inclined to set aside the impugned proceedings by remanding the matter to the respondent No.4. 6 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of, with the following directions: i) The impugned demand notice dated 30.12.2025 issued by respondent No.4 is hereby set aside, remanding the matter to respondent No.4 to furnish the documents which were sought by the petitioner, within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ii) After receipt of such documents, the petitioner is directed to submit explanation within a period of two (02) weeks, thereafter. iii) After submission of explanation, the respondent authorities, i.e., respondent No.4 herein shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (04) weeks, thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Date:05.02.2026 BSP 7 69 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.2682 OF 2026 Date:05.02.2026 BSP