IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI *** +W.P.No.3755 of 2017 Between: K. Satyanarayana … Petitioner AND $ Industries Commerce Dept. Prl. Secretary and 3 others ... Respondents Date of Order pronounced on: 18.03.2026 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No May be allowed to see the judgments? 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No to Law Reporters/Journals: 3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No Of the Judgment? 2 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI *HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM % Dated: 18.03.2026 +W.P.No.3755 of 2017 Between: K. Satyanarayana … Petitioner AND $ Industries Commerce Dept. Prl. Secretary and 3 others ... Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Velagani Narasimhulu ^Counsel for the Respondents : G.P. for Mines & Geology G.P. for Industries & Commerce Date of Order pronounced on : 18.03.2026 <GIST : >HEAD NOTE : ? Cases referred : 1) (2010) 4 SCC 785 2) 2019 SCC OnLine AP 253 3) 2022 SCC OnLine AP 2452 ___________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM 3 APHC010320152017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 3755/2017 Between: 1. K SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: FARMER, S/O NOOKA RAJU, DOOR NO.1-34, CHIBROLU VILLAGE, GOLLAPROLU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISRICT-533449. ...PETITIONER AND 1. PRL SECY INDUSTRIES COMMERCE DEPT HYD, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPT, A.P SECRETARIAT, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, A.P. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT-521456 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY VIG, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order in letter No 20300/M.I(2)/2016-1 dated 19.1.2017 passed by the 1st respondent as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the order in letter No 20300/M.1(2)/2016-1 dated 19.1.2017 passed by the 1st respondent and pass 4 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VELAGANI NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP) 2. GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE (AP) The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief: “……..declaring the order in letter No 20300/M.I(2)/2016-1 dated 19.1.2017 passed by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the order in letter No.20300/M.1(2)/2016-1 dated 19.1.2017 passed by the 1st respondent and pass…….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the writ affidavit, submits that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.3.00cents in Sy.No.86 of Chebrolu Village, Gollaprolu Mandal, East Godavari District and to that effect, the petitioner has pattadar passbook and title deed in his name. He submits that respondent No.4 issued Show-Cause-Notice dated 19.10.2012, for which, the petitioner preferred explanation on 08.11.2012 and without considering the same, the petitioner got issued demand notice on 19.12.2012, followed by reminder notice dated 30.03.2013 by the 4th respondent. 4. He also submits that aggrieved by the said action of the 4th respondent, the petitioner preferred revision application by invoking Section 35-A of A.P. 5 Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (in short ‘Rules, 1966’) before the 1st respondent on 28.05.2013, the same was returned on 25.02.2014 and communicated to the petitioner by way of letter dated 09.07.2015 by the 4th respondent. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner again re-submitted his revision on 03.09.2016, with a delay of 1148 days, which was rejected vide orders dated 19.01.2017 by the 1st respondent on the sole ground of delay of 2 years 8 months and without assigning any reasons at all. Hence, the writ petition. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel relies on the judgment dated 23.03.2016 passed in W.P.No.9558 of 2016. 6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines & Geology submits that the petitioner is illegally doing mining operations on his land, as such, the respondent authorities, by following the prerequisite procedural steps, rightly issued demand notice. She further submits that the petitioner filed revision application, but with the abnormal delay, as such, the authorities, considering the ground realities, rejected the same. 7. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by both the counsel and perused the material available on record. 8. Indisputably, even according to both the parties, the petitioner filed statutory revision by invoking the mechanism enunciated under Section 35-A of the Rules, 1966. 6 9. In this scenario, it is trite to extract the revisional powers circumscribed under Rule 35-A of the Rules, 1966, as under:- “35-A. Revision:– The Government may either suo motu 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, [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. 1 [Explanation:– For purposes of this rule where a Deputy Director has failed to dispose of an application for the grant or renewal of a quarry lease within the period specified in respect thereof under these rules, the Deputy Director shall be deemed to have made an order refusing the grant or renewal of such lease on the date on which such period expires.]” 10. A plain reading of the above Rule crystal clears that the 2nd respondent is empowered to examine and verify the legality and propriety of the orders impugned under challenge. Hence, the revisional powers are statutory in nature. 11. Another Significant Rule 35-C of the Rules, 1966 deals with the procedural aspects so as to file appeal/revision before the concerned authority and further, the concerned authority has the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal/revision if sufficient cause is found. The relevant portion of Rule 35-C of the Rules, 1966 is extracted hereunder:- 35-C. Application for appeal/revision:– Any appeal against any order passed by the Assistant Director or the Deputy Director or Joint Director filed before the Director under Rule 35, of revision 7 against any order passed by the Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director filed before the government under Rule 35-A of these rules shall be made in triplicate in Form J within the period specified in Rule 35 or 35-A of these rules, along with Treasury receipt shown that the fees specified in Rule 35-B of these rules has been paid into a Government Treasury, or in any Branch of State Bank of India/Hyderabad conducting the Treasury business to the credit of the head of account is specified therein : Provided that any such application may be entertained after the said period of two months/ninety days specified in Rule 35-A, if the applicant satisfies the Director/State Government that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within the specified time.] 12. Coming to the impugned order dated 19.01.2017 (Ex.P.1), which comprises three paras. Para Nos.1 & 2 prescribe about instituting the revision with the delay. Para No.3 goes to show that the petitioner's revision application was rejected as it was filed with a delay of (02) years (08) months and stating that the reasons mentioned in the revision application are not tenable. 13. For the sake of comprehensive view, para No.3 of the impugned order dated 19.01.2017 issued by the 1st respondent, is extracted hereunder:- “…..3. The Revisional Authority examined the revision application in the light of APMMC Rules, 1966 and held that the revision application filed by Sri Kommakula Satynarayana, East Godavari District, deserves no consideration for condonation of the delay under 35-C of APMMC Rules, 1966, as it was filed with a delay of (02) years (08) months. Further, the reasons mentioned in the revision application are not tenable. Hence, the Revision Application is rejected, duly returning the application in original……” 14. A close reading of the above para clearly reveals that the 1st respondent authority merely rejected the petitioner’s revision application on the ground of 8 delay and has not even considered whether the delay was sufficiently explained or not. In the absence of such fundamental prerequisites, in the considered opinion of this Court, if the impugned orders stand allowed, it would amount to gross violation of principles of natural justice and also the letter and spirit of Rule 35-A & 35-C of the Rules, 1966. It is the obligatory duty of the revisional authority to exercise its discretion under the provisions of Rules, 1966. 15. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, KOTA v. Shukla and brothers 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed about the importance of reasoned order, the relevant paragraph of which is extracted hereunder: “…...12. In exercise of the power of judicial review, the concept of reasoned orders/actions has been enforced equally by the foreign courts as by the courts in India. The administrative authority and tribunals are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof could render the order liable to judicial chastisement. Thus, it will not be far from an absolute principle of law that the courts should record reasons for their conclusions to enable the appellate or higher courts to exercise their jurisdiction appropriately and in accordance with law. It is the reasoning alone, that can enable a higher or an appellate court to appreciate the controversy in issue in its correct perspective and to hold whether the reasoning recorded by the court whose order is impugned, is sustainable in law and whether it has adopted the correct legal approach. To subserve the purpose of justice delivery system, therefore, it is essential that the courts should record reasons for their conclusions, whether disposing of the case at admission stage or after regular hearing.” “...13. At the cost of repetition, we may notice, that this Court has consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential 1 (2010) 4 SCC 785 9 feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher court in the event of challenge to that judgment. Now, we may refer to certain judgments of this Court as well as of the High Courts which have taken this view.” “...22. Besides referring to the above well-established principles, it will also be useful to refer to some text on the subject. H.W.R. Wade in the book Administrative Law, 7th Edn., stated that the flavour of the said reasons is violative of a statutory duty to waive reasons which are normally mandatory. Supporting a view that reasons for decision are essential, it was stated: “… A right to reasons is therefore an indispensable part of a sound system of judicial review. Natural justice may provide the best rubric for it, since the giving of reasons is required by the ordinary man's sense of justice. … *** … Reasoned decisions are not only vital for the purpose of showing the citizen that he is receiving justice: they are also a valuable discipline for the tribunal itself.” 16. In Ch. Rama Krishna and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised that recording reasons is the “heart of a 2 2019 SCC OnLine AP 253 10 decision,” and that a mere statement that the reply is “not satisfactory” does not satisfy legal requirements. Further, it had held that even when an alternative remedy (appeal) exists, the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 where the order is arbitrary or passed in breach of natural justice and accordingly, the impugned order was set aside with a direction to pass a fresh reasoned order after giving a proper opportunity of hearing. The relevant para of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: “...7. Though second respondent rejected reply, no reason is mentioned for such rejection and it is violative of principles of natural justice.” “...8. Though appeal is provided, when the order impugned in writ petition is against principles of natural justice, this Court can exercise power of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India, against the order passed by quasi judicial authority or administrative authority.” “...10. In view of law declared by Apex Court, when the authorities did not follow procedure, passed an order contrary to principles of natural justice, this Court can exercise power of judicial review, under Article 226 of Constitution of India and interfere with such order.” “...11. At the same time, reasons are heart of order which conveys information to the effected party about specific violation and rejection of such objection raised by effected party. Time and again the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla and brothers (2) (2010) 4 SCC 785 held that the order passed by judicial authority or quasi judicial authority must disclose reasons, to arrive at such conclusion in passing such order. The Apex Court also referred various judgments in Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co., of India Ltd. v. Union of India (3) (1976) 2 SCC 981 : AIR 1976 SC 1785, Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab (4) (1979) 2 SCC 368 and other judgments in Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh (5) (1987) 2 SCC 222, Chabungbambohal Singh v. Union of India (6) 1995 Supp (2) SCC 83 and Hindustan Times Limited v. Unior of India (7) (1998) 2 SCC 242, concluded that the absence of reasoning as to the mandatory requirement of 11 provision which conferred jurisdiction on the quasi judicial authority or a Court or administrative authority is mandatory.” “...12. By applying the tests laid down by Apex Court, to the present facts of case, it is abundantly clear that the order passed by second respondent is bereft of any reasons for rejection of reply - submitted by first petitioner, thereby, the order is unsustainable under law and it is violative of principles of natural justice. On this ground alone, the order is liable to be set aside, without adverting to other contentions urged before this Court.” 17. In Suvarnakanti Gandhi v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Writ Petition No. 16844 of 2023, dated 13.04.2023), it was held that the revisional authority, while exercising quasi-judicial powers under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, is under a mandatory obligation to pass a speaking order reflecting the application of the mind. Further, it had found that the authority merely reproduced the facts and, without any discussion or reasoning, partly allowed the revision by imposing a reduced penalty, which is legally impermissible and it was observed that even a beneficial or partially favourable order must contain reasons, as absence of reasons renders the decision arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in GSR Stone Crushers v. State of Andhra Pradesh3, held that any demand, penalty, or coercive action against a stone crusher unit must be preceded by a proper show cause notice, disclosure of material, and a meaningful opportunity of hearing. It was emphasised that passing orders mechanically, without considering the explanation of the affected party or recording reasons, renders such orders 3 2022 SCC OnLine AP 2452 12 arbitrary and unsustainable in law. Further, it was observed that the availability of an alternative remedy is not a bar when the impugned action is violative of natural justice and in such cases, the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside the order and direct fresh consideration in accordance with law. 19. The above legal precedents show the vital importance of the revisional jurisdiction as a substantive safeguard in the justice delivery system, particularly in administrative and quasi-judicial frameworks. The power of revision is not a mere procedural formality but a statutory obligation requiring the revisional authority to independently apply its mind to the facts, grounds, and legal issues raised before it. When a statute confers discretion of condonation of delay or re-examination of an order, the revisional authority must exercise such power judiciously by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Any failure to decide the revision on merits, or a mere mechanical disposal without addressing the contentions raised, amounts to abdication or failure to exercise jurisdiction, rendering the action legally unsustainable. 20. Further, the revisional authority is bound by the principles of natural justice, which mandate not only granting an opportunity of hearing but also recording clear reasons reflecting due consideration of the material on record and the absence of such reasoning vitiates the revisional order itself. Even where alternative remedies exist, higher courts can intervene if the revisional process is conducted arbitrarily or in violation of natural justice. Thus, the revisional jurisdiction serves as crucial corrective mechanism, and its proper 13 exercise through reasoned adjudication is essential to ensure fairness, transparency, and legality in administrative decision-making. 21. The revision is the right provided under the statutory realm by the Rules, 1966., and undisputedly, the revisional authority is conferred with the quasi-judicial powers, which must be exercised with the utmost care and caution within the statutory realm, by taking into consideration the principles of natural justice in its true letter and spirit, then only it would survive the intendment of the revisional powers. 22. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition in the following terms: - i. The impugned order dated 19.01.2017 issued by the 1st respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent so as to consider the condone delay application of the petitioner on merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with Law, within a period of three (3) months, from the date of receipt of copy of this Order by duly following the principles of natural justice. ii. Till such time, the respondents are hereby directed not to take any coercive steps based on the demand notice dated 19.11.2012 issued by the 4th respondent. 14 23. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 18.03.2026 GVK 15 205 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 3755 of 2017 Date: 18.03.2026 GVK