APHC010145812026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 7797 OF 2026 Between: 1. P.Gunasekhar Naidu, S/o Late P. Ramanaidu, Aged about 70 Years, R/o 5-35, Pilligundlapalli (V), Chittoor District - 517 167, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce (Mines II) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi 522 238 2. The Director of Mines and Geology, Department of Mines and Geology Ibrahimpatnam,Vijayawada, NTR District 521 456 3. The District Mines and Geology Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor District 517 001 4. The Divisional Mines and Geology Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor District 517 001 ...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 or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Demand Notice No. vide. NO.9099/Q2/2011 dated 25.02.2026 (received on 09.03.2026) by the District Mines and Geology Officer, Chittoor, and without considering the 2 request made by the petitioner for providing necessary documents for giving proper reply as arbitrary, predetermined, bad in law, illegal, unjust, against principles of natural Justice and unconstitutional and contrary to the AP Minor Mineral Rules 1966 and The Mines And Minerals (development and Regulations) Act 1957 and to set aside the same 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 to suspend the Demand Notice NO.9099/Q2/2011 dated 25.02.2026 (Received on 09.03.2026) by the District Mines and Geology Officer. Chittoor, pending disposal of the writ petition IA NO: 2 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 to direct the 3rd respondent to issue dispatch permits, pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: G N UMA RANI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE The Court made the following order: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 7797 OF 2026 ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief: “to issue a writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Demand Notice No. vide. NO.9099/Q2/2011 dated 25.02.2026 (received on 09.03.2026) by the District Mines and Geology Officer, Chittoor, and without considering the request made by the petitioner for providing necessary documents for giving proper reply as arbitrary, predetermined, bad in law, illegal, unjust, against principles of natural Justice and unconstitutional and contrary to the AP Minor Mineral Rules 1966 and The Mines And Minerals (development and Regulations) Act 1957 and to set aside the same” 2. Heard Ms.G.N.Umarani, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Ms.G.N.Umarani, submits that the 2nd respondent mining authority granted quarry lease for Colour 4 Granite Black over an extent of 1.000 hectors in Sy.No.245 of Katikapalli Village, S.R.Puram Mandal, Chittoor District, in favour of the petitioner for a period of 20 years, vide proceedings No.3091/R5-1/2012 dated 29.07.2013. 4. According to the learned counsel, in furtherance of 2nd respondent’s proceedings, the concerned Assistant Director of Mines and Geology also executed quarry lease deed, dated 28.10.2013 and also issued work order vide proceedings No.9099/Q2/2011 dated 28.10.2013 for the period commencing from 28.10.2013 to 27.10.2033. In terms of the same, the petitioner is conducting mining operations as per law. 5. The learned counsel further states that thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice vide No.9099/Q2/2011 dated 08.01.2026 (according to the petitioner, the said show cause notice was received by him on 30.01.2026). The learned counsel further elaborates that the said show cause notice mainly based upon the survey and inspection conducted by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Tirupathi along with other officials. In the said show cause notice, the 3rd respondent alleged violation of lease conditions as well as statutory realm by the petitioner. She further contends that after receiving the show cause notice, the petitioner preferred a written representation dated 10.02.2026 to the 3rd respondent seeking 5 to provide the relevant reports and documents so as to give an effective explanation to the said show cause notice. 6. The learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to Ex.P2 written representation of the petitioner dated 10.02.2026 addressed to the 3rd Respondent. 7. According to the learned counsel, the 3rd respondent without taking into consideration of the petitioner’s written representation dated 10.02.2026 seeking to provide documents, unilaterally and arbitrarily issued the impugned demand notice dated 25.02.2026. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly pointed out the impugned demand notice is hit by principles of natural justice. 8. Conversely, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology states that granting as well as executing of lease deed and work order in favour of the petitioner is not in dispute. However, she contends that as the petitioner violated the statutory provisions of APMMC Rules 1966, the acts of the petitioner are detrimental to the public exchequer, hence, as per the procedure invoked, the concerned mining authorities rightly issued show cause notice, followed by demand notice. She further submits that the impugned order is appealable, hence the very initiation of writ petition before this court by invoking Article 226 of Constitution of India itself is not maintainable. 6 9. This Court consciously heard the rival submissions made by both the counsel and also perused the material on record, which reveals that indisputably petitioner was granted lease for a period of 20 years, commencing from 28.10.2013 to 27.10.2033. Further, issuance of show cause notice against the petitioner is also not in dispute. 10. The only core issue remains is that consequent to the show cause notice dated 08.01.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent, despite the petitioner’s written representation dated 10.02.2026 requesting to provide the inspection report and the relevant documents, denied by the action of 3rd Respondent legally sustainable or not? 11. In this scenario, it is apt to go through the recitals made in show cause notice i.e. Ex.P3 dated 08.01.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent, wherein reference No.3 as well as the recitals of the said show cause notice categorically mentioned about the proceedings of the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Tirupati. 12. As such, the petitioner’s written representation dated 10.02.2026 seeking to provide copies of inspection and survey report and other relevant documents, which will play a pivotal role in submitting comprehensive explanation to the show cause notice dated 08.01.2026 issued by the 3rd Respondent. 7 13. Interestingly, the impugned demand notice dated 25.02.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent also replicate reference No.3 the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Tirupathi Survey and Inspection Report and also reference No.5 relates to written representation dated 10.02.2026 preferred by the petitioner, which was received by the 3rd respondent office on 11.02.2026. In the above context, it is crystal clear that the show cause notice mainly emanated upon the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Tirupati’s report and inspection, thereafter, the petitioner’s written representation dated 10.02.2026 seeking to provide documents, which was received by the 3rd respondent office on 11.02.2026, whereas, the impugned order was passed by the 3rd respondent on 25.02.2026, i.e., after lapse of 14 days from the date of receipt of written representation dated 10.02.2026 from the petitioner. In other words, the 3rd respondent after issuing the show cause notice dated 08.01.2026 inspite of receiving the specific written request on 11.02.2026 from the petitioner, but without providing the required documents as sought by the petitioner, passed the impugned orders which amounts to clear transgression of Principles of Natural Justice. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned demand notice dated 25.02.2026 is hit by gross violation of principles of natural justice and also well settled legal principles of the Apex Court as well as this Court in series of judgments. 8 15. In this contest, it is apt to note the well settled legal principle held by the Apex Court inCanara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy 1case, wherein the Apex Court held that when an authority initiates an action effecting the rights or career of an individual, it is duty-bound to follow the prescribed procedural safeguards and provide a fair opportunity to defend. In this case, the Apex Court observed that failure to furnish relevant documents relied upon by the authority and denial of adequate opportunity to the affected party to present their defence amounts to clear violation of principles of natural justice. In fact, Supreme Court in the above dictum vividly explained in the following terms; “...14. Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the fact and circumstances of that case, the framework of the statute under which the enquiry is held. The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away. Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice. The expression “civil consequences” encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella comes everything that affects a citizen in his civil life. 16. In Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh2, (three Judge Constitutional Bench judgement) case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court 1(2005) 6 SCC 321 2(2025) 7 SCC 545 9 held that any decision affecting the rights of a person cannot be taken without giving notice to that person and an opportunity of hearing. “...69. Additionally, a perusal of the order(s) of the Collector and Commissioner in revision would also show that they are practically identical. An ineffective hearing at the initial stage therefore taints the entire decision-making process leading to a cascade of flawed orders at subsequent stages. Providing a hearing to the affected individual, minimises the risk of administrative authorities making decisions in ignorance of facts or other relevant circumstances, as it allows all pertinent issues to be brought to light. This process not only aids the administration in arriving at a correct decision but also enables courts to more effectively review such actions. The primary purpose of natural justice is to assist the administration in reaching sound decisions at the outset, reducing the likelihood of decisions being overturned later. Its significance lies in fostering fair and well-informed decision-making at the very first instance.” “...70. Following the above discussion, it must be concluded that a defect at the initial stage cannot generally be cured at the appellate stage. Even in cases where a “full jurisdiction” may be available at the appellate stage, the courts must have the discretion to relegate it to the original stage for an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the ex parte decision to set aside the appellants' selection stands vitiated.” “...71. The principle of audi alteram partem is the cornerstone of justice, ensuring that no person is condemned unheard. This principle transforms justice from a mere technical formality into a humane pursuit. It safeguards against arbitrary decision-making, and is needed more so in cases of unequal power dynamics [ Upendra Baxi, “Preface: The Myth and Reality of the Indian Administrative Law” in I.P. Massey (Ed.), Administrative Law, 8th Edn. (EBC, 2012).].” 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh 3 , emphasized that administrative authorities must adhere to the principles of natural justice before taking any action that adversely affects the rights of a party and observed that 32025 SCC OnLine SC 1877 10 fairness in decision-making requires that the affected persons be given proper notice of the case against them and a reasonable opportunity to present their explanation or defence. It has also held that any decision taken in breach of these principles becomes procedurally unfair and is liable to be set aside, as observance of natural justice is an essential safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power. 18. Therefore, in view of above discussion and the reasoning arrived by this Court, though the impugned orders are appealable, but as primarily as it is in contravention of principles of natural justice, the version of the learned Assistant Government Pleader remains as a pale. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the following terms: i. The demand notice vide Notice No.9099/Q2/2011 dated 25.02.2026 issued by the 3rd Respondent is hereby set aside on the ground of principles of natural justice. ii. However, the 3rd respondent is hereby directed to provide required documents as sought for by the petitioner through his written representation dated 10.02.2026, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; iii. Upon receiving the documents from the 3rd Respondent within a period of 4 weeks, the petitioner is hereby directed to submit his explanation to the said show cause notice dated 08.01.2026 to the 3rdrespondent; iv. On receipt of such explanation, the 3rd respondent is hereby directed to dispose of the same as early as possible, 11 preferably, within a period of two (02) months by duly following the Principles of Natural Justice. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date: 31.03.2026 RMR/Rns 12 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.7797 of 2026 Date:31.03.2026 RMR/Rns 250