APHC010134192019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 5857/2019 Between: 1. M/S.C.K.S.PHARMA LABS PRIVATE LIMITED, NANDIGAMA, KRISHNA DISTRICT,A.P. REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE (MINES) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, NANDIGAMA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. ...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 to issue such appropriate writ, order or direction more so particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the Demand Notice No.3044NIG/2018, dated 2.2.2019 issued by the second respondent as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of principles of natural justice being a non- speaking order, without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 suspend the impugend demand notice NO.3044/vig/2018 dated 2.2.2019 issued by the second respondent pending disposal of the Writ petition by this Hon'ble Court Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1. M RADHAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 5857/2019 The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following main prayer: “…..to declare the Demand Notice No.3044NIG/2018, dated 2.2.2019 issued by the second respondent as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of principles of natural justice and being a non-speaking order, without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same and pass…..” 2. Heard Ms. Y. Vyshnavi, learned counsel representing Sri M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.13-14½ cents in R.S. Nos.241/1 (Ac.2-24 cents), 24/2 (Ac.3-01½ cents), 26 (Ac.0-60 cents) and 24 (Ac.7-29 cents), situated at Vedadri Village, Jaggayyapet Mandal, Krishna District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 16.08.2010 from C.K.S. Parma, a partnership firm. It is further submitted that the petitioner is running a bulk drug intermediates manufacturing industry in the said land. It is contended that the petitioner had obtained conversion of the subject land from agricultural to non-agricultural use from the competent Revenue Divisional Officer. Thereafter, the land was levelled using gravel available within the land and industrial activity was commenced. At that stage, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 30.11.2018 alleging that 4 the petitioner had excavated and dispatched gravel to the extent of 13,453 cubic meters without obtaining proper permission, thereby violated the relevant rules. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 10.01.2019 denying the allegations. However, without considering the said explanation properly, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned demand notice dated 02.02.2019. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly assails the impugned demand notice on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. More particularly, it is contended that both the show cause notice dated 13.11.2018 and the demand notice dated 02.02.2019 were issued by the 2nd respondent placing reliance on the Joint Survey and Inspection Reports dated 16.11.2018 and 28.11.2018 conducted by the concerned mining authorities. The said reports, being the very basis for issuance of the show cause notice as well as the demand notice, are vital documents. However, the same were not furnished to the petitioner, thereby depriving the petitioner of an effective opportunity to submit a proper explanation. Such non-supply of material documents amounts to a gross violation of principles of natural justice. 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was duly considered and thereafter the demand notice was issued following due procedure. She further contends that an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available to 5 the petitioner under Section 35 of the APMMC Rules, 1966, and therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the core issue that arises for consideration is ‘whether the impugned demand notice is vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice.’ 7. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 30.11.2018 as well as the impugned demand notice dated 02.02.2019 clearly reflects that both are relied upon the Joint Survey and Inspection Reports dated 16.11.2018 and 28.11.2018. When such reports constitute the very basis of the action proposed and taken, it is incumbent upon the respondent authorities to furnish the same to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to submit an effective explanation. Admittedly, the said reports were not furnished to the petitioner. Non-supply of such documents amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity and thus violates the principles of natural justice. 7. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the settled legal position, including the judgment in Ch. Rama Krishna and another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others1, wherein it was held that an order passed without considering the reply and without assigning reasons is unsustainable and violative of principles of natural justice. 8. Applying the said principle to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned demand notice is vitiated on 1 2020 (3) ALT 288 AP 6 account of violation of principles of natural justice. Once such violation is established, the existence of an alternative remedy would not operate as a bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed as follows: (1) Demand notice dated 02.02.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent is hereby set aside. (2) However, it is left open to the respondent authorities to proceed afresh in accordance with law, after duly furnishing all relevant material to the petitioner and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 31.03.2026 ARB 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 5857/2019 Date: 31.03.2026 ARB