1 APHC010279272020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 18448 OF 2020 Between: 1. M/s. Sri Vyshnavi Granites, Gurijepalli Village, Santhamagulur Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Proprietor K. Vanaja W/o. Subramanya Sharma, age 44 years, R/o. Plot No.306, Minakshi Towers, Prakash Nagar, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary (Mines and Geology Department), Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries, Infrastructure Investment and Commerce (Mines-I) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Director of Mines and Geology, 4th and 5th Floor, Sri Anjaneya Towers, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Old RIMS Building, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. ...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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd 2 respondent in dismissing / passing of non speaking orders in the revision filed by the petitioner in Memo No.551/M.I(1)/2019-4, Dated 19.11.2019 inconsonance with the notice No.10505/AN37(31)/2017, Dated 23.10.2019 issued by the 4th respondent without considering the case of the petitioner nor giving any opportunity of personnel hearing as well as without considering the evidence produced by her as illegal, arbitrary and also opposed to principles of natural justice as well as opposed to all cannons of justice, consequentially stay of operation of the orders passed in Revision in Memo No.551/M.I(1)/2019-4, Dated 19.11.2019 inconsonance with the Notice No.10505/AN37(31)/2017, Dated 23.10.2019 issued by the 4th respondent and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 of operation of the orders passed in Revision in No.551/M.I(1)/2019-4, Dated 19.11.2019 inconsonance with the notice No.10505/AN37(31)/2017, Dated 23.10.2019 issued by the 4th respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition and to 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 dismiss the writ petition by vacating the interim order dated 09-10-2020 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.P.No.18448 of 2020 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following order: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 18448 OF 2020 ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in dismissing / passing of non speaking orders in the revision filed by the petitioner in Memo No.551/M.I(1)/2019-4, Dated 19.11.2019 inconsonance with the notice No.10505/AN37(31)/2017, Dated 23.10.2019 issued by the 4th respondent without considering the case of the petitioner nor giving any opportunity of personnel hearing as well as without considering the evidence produced by her as illegal, arbitrary and also opposed to principles of natural justice as well as opposed to all cannons of justice, consequentially stay of operation of the orders passed in Revision in Memo No.551/M.I(1)/2019-4, Dated 19.11.2019 inconsonance with the Notice No.10505/AN37(31)/2017, Dated 23.10.2019 issued by the 4th respondent and to pass” 2. Heard Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitionerand the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of the impugned Memo No.551/M.I(1)/2019-4, Dated 19.11.2019, the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed, without giving any opportunity of 4 hearing to the petitioner and he disputed the order under challenge on multiple grounds, but he emphasized on the main ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 4. The learned counsel further elaborating his submission that the impugned orders dated 19.11.2019 passed by the 1st respondent are absolutely without any reasons at all. To substantiate his assertions, he has drawn the attention of this Court to Ex.P1 orders dated 19.11.2019. 5. Conversely, the learned Assistant Government Pleader (Mines & Geology) by reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 4 along with their vacate stay petition filed in the year 2021, interalia submits that the impugned orders were passed by the competent authority only after following all procedural pre-requisites, more particularly, according to her issuing show cause notice followed by the demand notice. Hence, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the light of the above rival submissions made by the respective counsel, it is apt to go through the material on record before arriving the findings in the lis. 7. Evidently, at the admission stage, this Court granted interim orders in favour of the petitioner and the same are still subsisting as of now, though the respondents filed vacate stay petition long back. 5 8. Now, directly coming into core issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri V.Sai Kumar, that impugned orders suffer from lack of proper reasoning at all. In this context, it is apt to note the relevant provision, which deals with the revisional powers, i.e. Rule 35-A of Andhra Pradesh Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1966 (in short Rules 1966). 9. For the sake of comprehensive view, Rule 35-A of APMMC Rules, 1966, is extracted hereunder: “35-A. Revision: The Government may either suo moto at any time or on an application made within ninety days, call for and examine the record relating to any order passed or proceeding taken by the Director, 3[Joint Director], Deputy Director or Assistant Director under these rules for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of such proceedings and pass such order in reference thereto as they think fit: Provided that no order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this rule unless such person has been given an opportunity of making his representation.” 10. A plain reading of the above statutory realm clearly empowers the 1st respondent to examine the record so as to test its legality or propriety and also having powers to verify regularity of the proceedings under the revision. In nutshell, the first respondent has been conferred revisional jurisdiction not only to correct the errors but also test the legality of the proceedings under challenge. 6 11. In the above scenario, coming to the impugned orders, i.e. Ex.P1 dated 19.11.2019 passed by the first respondent wholly comprising of eight paras. Para Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 are reiteration of the facts regarding issuance of show cause notice and demand notice etc. In respect of paras 5, 6, 7 and 8 are concerned, the reasons are assigned by the first respondent in dismissing the revision. In this context, it is appropriate to reiterate the relevant paras of reasoning in paras 5, 6, 7 and 8, which areas under: “5. In order to dispose of the revision application, a personal hearing was conducted on 12.09.2019 duly giving reasonable opportunity for personal hearing to the revision petitioner. 6. After having heard the arguments and counter arguments, the revisional authority is hereby dismiss the revision application and directed the revision applicant to pay the Market value of Rs.5,16,831/- and penalty of Rs.5,10,000/-, total of Rs.10,26,831/-.. 7. Accordingly, the revision application is disposed of under Rule 35-A of APMMC Rules, 1966. 8. The Director of Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, shall take further necessary action in the matter, accordingly” 12. A plain reading of above paragraphs, it is crystal clear that except regarding the date of personal hearing and hearing the arguments, no other reasons are assigned in the impugned orders. 13. The sum and substance of the above orders are not in consonance with the well settled legal principles. It is appropriate to mention that the catena of judgments of Apex Court and this Court, which emphasize the 7 reasons, are lifeline and pre-requisite for any order including the orders of the quasi judicial authorities. 14. The principle of reasoned decision in administrative law is oft considered as a principle of natural justice, in spirit and in practice. The importance of a reasoned decision is derived not only from its aim of showing receipt of justice by the citizens but also emanated from its existence as a valid discipline for administration of justice. 15. In Basudev Dutta v. State of West Bengal1 the Apex Court held that recording reasons is not a mere formality but a fundamental requirement of natural justice and a settled law, as it demonstrates application of mind, ensures transparency, and enables effective judicial review and was observed that when an order is passed without disclosing the basis or reasoning, it becomes arbitrary and unsustainable in law and further stressed that even in administrative or disciplinary proceedings, failure to furnish reasons or relevant materials deprives the affected party of a fair opportunity, thereby vitiating the entire decision making process. The relevant portion is extracted here under: “…12.2. It is settled law that every administrative or quasi- judicial order must contain the reasons. Such reasons go a long way in not only ensuring that the authority has applied his mind to the facts and the law, but also provide the grounds for the aggrieved party to assail the order in the manner known to law. In the absence of any reasons, it also possesses a difficulty for 12024 SCC OnLine SC 3616 8 the judicial authorities to test the correctness of the order or in other words, exercise its power of judicial review….” “…12.6. It is manifestly clear from the above judgments that reasons are heartbeat of every order and every notice must specify the grounds on which the administrative or quasi-judicial authority intends to proceed; if any document is relied upon to form the basis of enquiry, such document must be furnished to the employee; it is only then a meaningful reply can be furnished; and the failure to furnish the documents referred and relied in the notice would vitiate the entire proceedings as being arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice; and before taking any adverse decision, the aggrieved person must be given an opportunity of personal hearing. In the light of the same, we have no hesitation to hold that the order of termination passed against the appellant is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and it cannot be sustained.” 16. It is relevant to note that recently this Court after perceiving the revisional authority powers and rejecting the revision on mere hyper technical manner under A.P.M.M.C.Rules, 1966 coupled with relevant legal principles settled by Apex Court and this Hon’ble Court passed orders in K.Satyanarayana Vs. Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Hyderabad (Orders dated 18.03.2026 in W.P.No.3755 of 2017) emphasizing the importance of revisional powers. 17. As discussed above, evidently Rule 35-A empowers the first respondent statutory revisional jurisdiction but the first respondent while exercising the statutory realm of revisional powers, not exercised the same in tunes of statutory as well as settled legal principles including following the principles of natural justice in it’s true letter and spirit. 9 18. Hence, in view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the Memo No.340/M.I(1)/2019-4, Dated 19.11.2019passed by the 1st respondent and remit the matter to the revisional authority for considering the matter afresh after giving due opportunity to the petitioner at the earliest within the period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 19. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:12.03.2026 Rns 10 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.18448 of 2020 Date:12.03.2026 Rns