1 APHC010106242021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 6069 OF 2021 Between: 1. H. Imam Sab, S/o Kasim Sab, Aged about 51 years, Occ. Business, R/o. D.No.5-174-B, U.Rangapuram village, MadakasiraMandal, Ananthapuramu District. ...Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Mines and Geology, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada. 3. Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ananthapuramu. ...Respondents 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 to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the Demand Notice issued by Respondent No.3 on 24.12.2020 Vide No. 4556/Q2/C.G/2011 calling upon the petitioner to pay the penalty, double the market value and fine of Rs.5.00 lakhs as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14, 19 and 300-A of Constitution of 2 India r/w provisions of the A.P. Mines Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and consequently set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Demand Notice issued by Respondent No.3 on 24.12.2020 Vide No. 4556/Q2/C.G/2011 pending WP and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 to direct the respondents to give necessary work order and permit periodically pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: J SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following order: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.6069 OF 2021 ORDER: The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer: “to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the Demand Notice issued by Respondent No.3 on 24.12.2020 Vide No. 4556/Q2/C.G/2011 calling upon the petitioner to pay the penalty, double the market value and fine of Rs.5.00 lakhs as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14, 19 and 300-A of Constitution of India r/w provisions of the A.P. Mines Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and consequently set aside the same and pass…..” 2. Heard Ms.Shaik Neha Hassan, advocate representing Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for the respondents and also perused the material placed by the respective parties in the lis. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, namely H.Imam Sab, was granted quarry lease for colour granite over an extent of 0.682 hectors in Sy.No.3-1 of Jadarhalli village, Madakasira Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, on 02.08.2012 4 for a period of 20 years vide proceedings No.4556/Q2/CG/2011, dated 02.08.2012 issued by the 3rd respondent. Later the lease deed was executed by the petitioner before the concerned authority. Accordingly lease period is up to the year 2032. Thereafter, the petitioner was prevented from his quarry operations by the respondent authorities. 4. In that way initially on 17.02.2018 a show cause notice was issued by the 3rd respondent, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation. Without considering the same, authorities passed demand notice dated 18.08.2018. The same was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.No.34031 of 2018 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. Later on, this Court set aside the demand notice dated 18.08.2018 vide its order dated 25.09.2018 in W.P.No.34031 of 2018 by leaving it open to the authorities to pass fresh orders. 5. The learned counsel further submits that again 3rd respondent passed un-reasoned demand orders by rejecting the petitioner’s request. Hence, the petitioner filed another writ petition No.6188 of 2019 seeking re-survey of leased area. In the said W.P.No.6188 of 5 2019, this Court issued interim orders to consider the request of the petitioner for re-survey in accordance with law. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of memo dated 25.10.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent to the mining authorities to examine the complaint of illegal mining in Jadarahalli village, Madakasira Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, a survey was conducted but without giving any notice to the petitioner and also relevant details of said survey report also not furnished to the petitioner. 7. As further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however the respondent mining authorities issued a show cause notice dated 09.07.2020 to the petitioner alleging irregularities. Consequent to the said show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation dated 28.09.2020 to the authorities along with relevant documents, but, without considering the reply along with it’s enclosures submitted by the petitioner comprehensively, the 3rd respondent authority issued a demand notice dated 24.12.2020 vide No.4556/Q2/C.G/2011 against the petitioner. Challenging the said demand notice dated 24.12.2020, the petitioner instituted the instant writ petition. 6 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this Court in the present writ petition initially granted interim orders on 20.03.2021 by directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps and the same was extended from time to time. Learned counsel further asserts that, in view of un-reasonable, arbitrary hurdles created by the respondent mining authorities, the petitioner was forced to file I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.6069 of 2021, wherein this Court was pleased to pass orders on 04.05.2023. 9. The counsel further stressed upon this Court’s interim orders dated 04.05.2023 and elaborated her arguments that this Court directed the petitioner to remove the waste material from pits in all the quarries allotted to the petitioner and also further guided the respondent authorities to conduct re-survey basing upon the same, authorities may take steps for granting permissions in accordance with law only. 10. The counsel during the course of arguments contended that in terms of orders of this Court dated 04.05.2023, the petitioner complied all pre-requisites and also applied for re-survey. Accordingly, the concerned District Mines and Geology Officer, 7 Puttaparthi, Sri Satya Sai District (erstwhile Ananthapuramu District) Office Personnel, surveyed quarry leased areas of the petitioner and submitted survey report along with the relevant sketch. 11. Consequently, the District Mines and Geology Officer, Puttaparthi, Sri Satya Sai District (erstwhile Ananthapuramu District) along with his remarks by enclosing survey report addressed a letter vide No.4556/Q2/C.G/2011 dated 22.01.2024 to the second respondent, and the same is pending adjudication right from the two years onwards, which leads to serious prejudice to the petitioner’s rights. To substantiate her arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner also filed memo vide W.P.USR No.25624 of 2026 dated 26.02.2026 and at last, she prayed this Court to issue appropriate directions to the respondents 1 and 2 to pass positive orders by duly taking into consideration of subsequent events i.e. letter dated 22.01.2024 issued by the District Mines and Geology Officer, Puttaparti. 12. Conversely, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines & Geology Mrs.Anusha, submits that though the 3rd respondent initially filed a vacate stay petition in the year 2021 basing upon the material available as on the date. But, in view of subsequent interim 8 orders dated 04.05.2023 passed by this Court, coupled with the latest written instructions from the District Mines and Geology Office, Sri Satya Sai District, Puttaparthi (erstwhile Ananthapuramu district), she contended that, consequent to the interim orders dated 04.05.2023 of this Court in the present writ petition, a re-survey has been conducted on 28.12.2023. According to which, they found some anomalies in the previous survey and further she also states that consequent to the re-survey and the latest proposals vide letter No.4556/Q2/CG/2011 dated 22.01.2024 issued by the office of District Mines & Geology Officer, Puttaparthi, for modification of granted sketches in DGPS surveyed plans, google maps, village plans in respect of quarry leased areas held by the petitioner, forwarded to the 2nd respondent office and the same is under process. 13. Having regard to the above rival submissions and also taking into consideration of the subsequent events taken place in the lis it appears that consequent to the interim orders dated 04.05.2023 made in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P 6069 of 2021, the stance of the Respondent Authorities metamorphosized. In this context it is apt to note that indisputably in the year 2021 the petitioner challenged the 9 Demand Notice dated 24.12.2020 issued by the 3rd Respondent. Initially, the Respondent Authorities filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 seeking Vacation of Interim Orders and filed counter on 17.04.2021 denying the assertions of the petitioner but the said Interim order has not been vacated by this Court. Later on, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking specific directions against the Respondents. In the said I.A., this Court after considering the rival submissions of the respective parties issued specific directions to both the parties in the lis. In this scenario it is apt to extract the relevant portion of the orders dated 04.05.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2022: “In that view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to remove the waste material filled in the excavated pits in all the quarries allotted to him within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After removal of the waste material from the pits, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.3 within a period of two (02) weeks and on such representation being made, the latter is directed to conduct resurvey in all the quarries allotted to the petitioner within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter and after recording findings of the resurvey, the latter can take steps for granting permissions strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than one (01) week.” 10 14. In terms of the above said orders, the District Mines and Geology Officer, Puttaparthy, Sri Satya Sai District (erstwhile Ananthapuram District) initiated Survey in respect of the Leased areas of the petitioner situated in Survey No.3 of Jadarhalli Village, Madakasira Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. In the said survey the Respondent Mining Authorities had found certain anomalies and lack of scientific methodology in conducting previous surveys by the then mining authorities. Thereafter, the above said District Mines and Geology Officer, Puttaparthy forwarded a letter no. 4556/Q2/CG/2011, dated 22.01.2024 addressed to the 2nd Respondent wherein he requested the 2nd Respondent to consider and approve the DGPS surveyed plans of the subject leased area held by the petitioner and also further requested him to take necessary action. In this backdrop, it is pertinent to mention the relevant portion of the Letter dated 22.01.2024 from the District Mines and Geology Officer, Puttaparthy for the sake of comprehensive view. “Accordingly, as per the directions of the DM & G, Ibrahimpatnam, dt.29.11.2023 and as per the orders dt:04.05.2023 of the Hon’ble High Court, the Surveyor of this office has surveyed the leased area held by Sri H.Imam Sab on 28.12.2023 and obtained all the surrounding FMBS of Sy.No.03 11 of Jadarhalli Village, Madakasira Mandal, and super imposed the leased areas into the scale map as per the executed plans of the respective lease holders in Sy.No.03 of Jadarahalli Vg., and the Surveyor had prepared a scaled plan and conducted detailed survey of the aforesaid leased area with DGPS instrument and calculated the excavated quantities with cross sections within and outside the leased area including the dumps against the quarry lease held by Sri H.Imam Sab in the subject area” “As per the observations made by me, the executed sketch is not scaled map, but it is just a shaped map. The then Surveyors has not converted the executed sketch from shaped map into scaled map with the help of village map and side FMBs of Survey No.3 of Jadarahalli Village, Madakasira Mdl. Hence, the result of finding encroachment during the earlier Surveys which were conducted on 13.02.2014 and 04.03.2014 are questionable. Copy of the survey report along with the sketch is enclosed for kind perusal” “As such the Surveyor of this office has plotted the worked out pits in the leased area on the DGPS surveyed sketch and arrived the volume of the quantities excavated by the leased holder in the leased area” “Hence, it is very need to approve the DGPS map prepared by this office Surveyor for giving reply to the lessee as per the Hon’ble High Court orders. As such I am herewith submitting the executing sketch, DGPS surveyed plans, cross sections, Google Maps, Village Plans & Contour Plans with regard to the working within and outside the above said quarry 12 leased area held by Sri H.Imam Sab over an extent of 0.682 Hectors are submitted for the kind perusal” 15. A close perusal of the above letter along with the Survey Report which was placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner vide Memo WP USR 25624 of 2026 dated 25.02.2026 in the connected case W.P.No.5001 of 2021, it is crystal clear that in the wake of Interim Orders dated 04.05.2023 made in I.A.No.1 of 2022 the Respondent mining authorities conducted re-survey on 28.12.2023 wherein they found that, the very finding of encroachment during the earlier surveys which were conducted on 13.02.2014 and 04.03.2014 are quite controversial. 16. In nutshell, the Respondent mining authorities themselves are raising suspicion and questionable findings relating to the previous surveys dated 13.02.2014 and 04.03.2014 conducted in the leased areas of petitioner. At last, the District and Mines Geology Officer, Puttapurthy forwarded a letter No. 4556/Q2/CG/2011, dated 22.01.2024 to the office of the 2nd Respondent and even according to the learned AGP Mines and Geology the said proposals are still pending before the 2nd Respondent and final orders are not yet passed. 13 17. Upon considering the totality of the facts and circumstances involved in the lis, as the writ petition is of the year 2021 to put quietus to the litigation, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition, in the following terms: 1. The impugned demand notice No.4556/Q2/CG/2011 dt:24.12.2020 of the 3rd respondent is hereby set aside; 2. The 2nd respondent is further directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law on the proposals letter No..4556/Q2/CG/2011, dated 22.01.2024 forwarded by the District Mines and Geology Officer, Puttaparthy, Sri Satya Sai District (erst while Ananthapuram District) as early as possible, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 3. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:27.02.2026 Rns 14 15 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.6069 of 2011 Date:27.02.2026 Rns