Allowed

M/S Sri Venkatasai Granites v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Feb 2024WA/142/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quarry lessee challenged a demand notice of over Rs.129 crore based on vigilance findings. The single Judge had relegated it to alternate remedies. The Division Bench held that failure to supply the GA (V&E) report with the show cause notice rendered the reply illusory and allowed the appeals.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; fresh show cause notice to be issued along with the vigilance report and other material.

M/S Sri Venkatasai Granites Vs the State… — Mining and Natural Resources | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶3

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶5

WRIT APPEAL Nos.141, 142, 143 and 148 of 2024

¶6

M/s. Sri Venkatasai Granites, Survey No.589, 290/3, Basvapalli Village, Naraharipeta Post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District, Rep. by its Managing Partner, P. Amruthavalli, W/o.P. Maheswara Rao, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Door No.19-262/1A, Red Cross Street, Mittor, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

¶7

... Appellant in all the writ appeals

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce (Mines) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and two others.

¶10

…Respondents in all the writ appeals

¶11

Mr. Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, Counsel for the appellant.

¶12

Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶13

DATE : 15.02.2024

¶14

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶15

HCJ & RRR, J 2 WA_Nos_141_2024 & batch

¶16

PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ:

¶17

Service of notices waived by learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in Writ Appeal Nos.141, 142, 143 and 148 of 2024.

¶18

Learned counsel for the parties agree to the final disposal of the present writ appeals at the admission stage itself.

¶19

In all the four aforementioned writ appeals, since common questions of law and fact arise, we propose to deal with them by way of a common judgment and order. Facts in W.A.No.141 of 2024 are being referred to, for the sake of convenience.

¶20

The present writ appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.1111 of 2024.

¶21

The petitioner/appellant herein is the beneficiary of a quarry lease executed in its favour by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Chittoor dated 25.03.2021. The lease was to remain in force till 31.08.2030.

¶22

HCJ & RRR, J 3 WA_Nos_141_2024 & batch

¶23

It appears that the Government issued a memo dated 20.04.2023, forwarding a report of GA (V&E) Department to the Director of Mines and Geology, as per the said report the quarry lease held by the petitioner was jointly inspected by the officials of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department along with officials of Mines and Geology department from 06.08.2022 to 08.08.2022 in which certain deviations and violations under the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short “APMMC Rules, 1966”) and Granite Conservation And Development Rules, 1999 (for short “ GCDR, 1999”) were reported. A show cause notice dated 30.06.2023 was served upon the petitioner requiring it to show cause as to why action be not taken against it in accordance with Rule 12 (5) (h)(iii) of the APMMC Rules on account of the violations committed by it. The petitioner stood informed that failure to submit a reply would result in necessary action under the said rules based on the material available on record.

¶24

A reply dated 17.07.2023 was then furnished by the petitioner to the respondents wherein it was highlighted that the show cause notice was served upon him without the material relied upon in the same, without which it was stated that no effective representation/reply could be submitted in regard to the allegations

¶25

HCJ & RRR, J 4 WA_Nos_141_2024 & batch

¶26

made therein. Even then some explanation was rendered to the said show cause notice. Finally, a demand notice dated 23.08.2023 was issued by the District Mines and Geology Officer, Chittoor requiring the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,29,11,21,580/-.

¶27

The petitioner in those circumstances finally challenged the notice of demand by filing a writ petition which came to be disposed of, by relegating the petitioner to the alternate remedy, considering the fact that the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice had not specifically mentioned the list of documents which were required to be served upon the petitioner.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that failure on the part of the official respondents to furnish to the petitioner the report of GA (V&E) Department, dated 13.02.2023 based upon which the show cause notice was served upon the petitioner/appellant herein had resulted in grave prejudice to the appellant inasmuch as in the absence of such material, the appellant was precluded from making an effective representation.

¶29

Reliance was placed upon the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited vs.

¶30

HCJ & RRR, J 5 WA_Nos_141_2024 & batch

¶31

Government of Andhra Pradesh¹ and in particular paragraph 31 wherein the Apex Court held:

¶32

“31. The basic principles of natural justice seem to have been disregarded by the State Government while revising the order. It acted on materials which were not supplied to the appellants. Additionally, the High Court for the first time made reference to the report/inspection notes which were not even referred to by the State Government while exercising revisional power.”

¶33

It is a fundamental principle of law that before any action is taken against a person, he is to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. A reasonable opportunity of being heard would necessarily imply serving upon such a person the requisite material based upon which the action is proposed to be taken as reflected in the show cause notice. Failure to provide such material based upon which action is proposed to be taken against a person would indeed prevent such a person from submitting a comprehensive reply and the reply so furnished in the absence of such a material would only be rendered illusory.

¶34

Be that as it may, we allow the present writ appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge. A fresh notice may be issued by the official respondents to the

¶35

1 (2008) 16 SCC 276

¶36

HCJ & RRR, J 6 WA_Nos_141_2024 & batch

¶37

appellant herein along with the copy of the GA (V&E) Department report, dated 13.02.2023, as also any other material which can be used by the official respondents while contemplating action against the appellant in terms of the Rule 12 (5) (h)(iii) of the APMMC Rules, 1966. No order as to costs.

¶38