/APHC010062282026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3745/2026 Between: 1. SRI Y. RAVI KUMAR,, S/O SRI Y. NAGAMUNI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,R/O H.NO.13/86, VADLAPALEM (V) TADIPATRI TOWN, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 515411, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, A.P.-522239 . 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P.-521456. 3. THE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, O/O MINES AND GEOLOGY, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 518502. 4. THE REGIONAL VIGILANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, PLOT NO.36, ROAD NO.3, RAMALINGESWARA NAGAR, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH- 518003. ...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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the impugned Notice O.1804/QL/2008 dated. 15.12.2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent 2 demanding an amount of Rs.4,34,69,099/- from the Petitioner herein, holding that the Earlier Demand Notice dated.23.06.2025 holds good without furnishing the requisite documents by considering the Petitioners representation dt.08.09.2025, for submitting a detailed reply to the show- cause Notice NO.1804/QL/2008, Dated.30.04.2025, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without any Jurisdiction, null and void ab initio, contrary to the Final Order dated.28.07.2025 passed by this Honble High Court in W.P. No. 18402 of 2025, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, besides being contrary to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, AP Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, and rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned Notice No.1804/QL/2008 dated. 15.12.2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent, and pass such 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 may be pleased to STAY the operation of the impugned Notice NO.1804/QL/2008 dated 15.12.2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent and restrain the Respondents from taking any coercive action pursuant to the said impugned Notice dated 15.12.2025, during the pendency of this Writ Petition, and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3745/2026 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 of declaring that the impugned Notice No.1804/QL/2008 dated 15.12.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent demanding an amount of Rs.4,34,69,099/- from the petitioner herein, holding that the Earlier Demand Notice dated 23.06.2025 holds good without furnishing the requisite documents by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 08.09.2025, for submitting a detailed reply to the show-cause Notice NO.1804/QL/2008, Dated.30.04.2025, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without any Jurisdiction, null and void ab-initio, contrary to the Final Order dated 28.07.2025 passed by this Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 18402 of 2025, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, besides being contrary to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, AP Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, and rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned Notice No.1804/QL/2008 dated 15.12.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent, and pass such other order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents issued a show-cause notice dated 30.04.2024 requesting the petitioner to submit documentary evidence for excavated and transported quantities of 989.15 Mts of Limestone Slabs (Black) within the leased area, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of the said notice. For which, the 4 petitioner submitted a representation on 08.05.2025 requesting the authorities concerned for submission of joint inspection report, which has been conducted behind the back of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner herein is that even after receipt of representation of the petitioner dated 08.05.2025, without furnishing the documents, the respondent authorities proceeded further and issued demand notice dated 23.06.2025 without observing the principles of natural justice and also on their own terms of the notices under which the petitioner was called for an explanation. Having no other option the petitioner assailed the said demand notice dated 23.06.2025 by way of W.P.No.18402 of 2025. After hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader, this Court was pleased to pass final order, hereunder: “6. Perused the record. The petitioner, in response to the show cause notice, has requested documents, such as the report of the joint inspection conducted when the petitioner was not physically present at the quarry area, to submit a detailed explanation. From the said observation of the respondent that, the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not tenable, it can safely be said that the authority not only failed to furnish the report sought by the petitioner but also failed to look into the explanation of the petitioner. Had he looked into it, he would have observed whether the petitioner's request for furnishing the inspection report is justifiable or not. Thus, the impugned order not only suffers from a 5 violation of principles of natural justice but also suffers from non-application of the mind by the authority, rendering the demand raised unsustainable. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of, setting aside the impugned order, dated 23.06.2025, and remanding the matter to the 3rd respondent. The respondent No.3 is directed to furnish copies of the documents that have been asked for, by the petitioner, vide explanation dated 08.05.2025. The said documents/reports shall be furnished to the petitioner within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of the order, and the petitioner shall submit his explanation within two (02) weeks thereafter. After submission of the explanation by the petitioner, the respondent No.3 is directed to pass appropriate orders on the show cause notice within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of the explanation of the petitioner. 7. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4. While passing the orders, this Court specifically set aside the demand notice dated 23.06.2025 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration and also directed the respondents to furnish required documents and directed the petitioner to submit explanation as per the terms of the order. Pursuant to which the respondents furnished the documents to the petitioner which was sought by him vide representation dated 08.05.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another representation on 23.08.2025 seeking some more 6 documents which were referred in the documents furnished to the petitioner. But without furnishing the same and without granting some more time for explanation, the authorities concern erroneously issued the impugned demand notice dated 15.12.2025, by making observation that the earlier demand notice dated 23.06.2025 holds good in view of non-submission of explanation by the petitioner as directed by this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since, the demand notice dated 23.06.2025 was already set aside, the authorities concerned cannot make a finding that the demand notice of the respondents dated 23.06.2025 holds good, which would be in contravention of the orders of this Court. He further submits that the impugned demand notice dated 15.12.2025 lacks merits on the ground of non-consideration of the request of the petitioner vide representation dated 23.08.2025 and also not in terms of the order of this Court dated 28.07.2025. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents drawn the attention of this Court to the original show- cause notice dated 30.04.2024 and stated that the show-cause notice of the respondents is only requesting the petitioner to furnish the documents as enumerated in the show-cause notice, which should be possessed and should be maintained by the petitioner in 7 terms of the lease agreement and mining plan. There is no other factor to make any dispute or to require any information for submission of explanation by the petitioner. He further submits that furnishing documents as sought by the petitioner was already complied with. Even though the same were furnished, the petitioner again submitted another representation seeking for some other documents is unwarranted, intentional and particularly to drag the matter for one reason or the other. He further submits that this Court specifically directed the petitioner to submit explanation within a period of one week, but without submitting the explanation for the reasons best known to the petitioner, the petitioner again requested for some more documents on the guise of that they were referred at the documents furnished to him, pursuant to the orders of this Court, even though those documents are not at all necessary for any explanation. Therefore, the impugned demand notice dated 15.12.2025 do not warrants any interference of this Court. 7. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material on record. On perusal of the show-cause notice dated 30.04.2024, wherein the petitioner was requested as under: “In view of the above, you are hereby requested to submit the documentary evidence for excavated & transported quantity of 989.15 MTs of Limestone Slabs (Black) within the leased area and 32024.15 MTs of Limestone Slabs (Balck) outside leased area having paid seigniorage fee particularly to Mines and Geology, 8 Department, in Sy.No.882/2 of Petnikota Village, Kolimigundla Mandal, Nandyal District within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which necessary action will be initiated as per APMMC Rules, 1966.” 8. As contended by the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner was requested only for submission of documentary evidence which has to be maintained and to be in his possession of the petitioner in terms of the mining lease agreement and mining plan and nothing less nothing more than that. Therefore, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the request of the documents one after other demonstrates the conduct of the petitioner and intentionally acted to drag the matter, but infact the documents sought by the petitioner are necessary/mandatory documents to be maintained by him as per the terms of the lease agreement is valid and sustainable in view of the comprehensive verification of the documents. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the respondents in the present demand notice that earlier demand notice dated 23.06.2025 holds good is certainly contrary to law and settled principles of law. Once this Court specifically held and declared as illegal and set aside the same, it cannot be restored by the respondents for the reason that it is settled law once this Court declared either demand notice or other proceedings as illegal and set aside, the respondent authorities cannot be acted upon and cannot restore the same. Therefore, the 9 contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner without issuing fresh show-cause notice and without considering the explanation, issuing the demand notice is contrary to the orders of this Court is to be considered. Further on perusal of the other proceedings issued by the respondents it is observed that the joint inspection was conducted and the details mentioned therein are appears to be sufficient for submission of any explanation for the reason explanation only requires the petitioner to produce documentary evidence, which are to be held by him in the terms of the lease agreement. 9. In view of the reasons stated above and on perusal of the order of this Court dated 28.07.2025, this Court inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petition directing the petitioner herein to treat the subject demand notice dated 15.12.2025 as show-cause notice to be read with original show cause notice as part and parcel and submit detailed explanation/furnish documents as demanded, within a period of three(3) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. After such submission, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the explanation and pass appropriate orders within a period of two(2) months thereafter. 10. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 10 As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 10.02.2026 TTPPSS 11 119 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3745/2026 10.02.2026 TTPPSS