Disposed

S.N. Manohar, v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Dec 2024WP/15257/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a granite quarry demand notice issued without considering the lessee's explanation and an unreasoned return of his revision. The court set both aside at admission stage and remanded the matter to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology for fresh, reasoned consideration with an opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Demand Notice No.707/(2)/Vg/V&E/Vg-Gooty/Granite-QLS/2012 dt.09-05-2012 and Letter No.5476/M.I(1)/2015-1 dt.03.12.2015 set aside; matter remanded for fresh reasoned order within three months.

S.N. Manohar, Vs State of Andhra… — Mining and Natural Resources | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 15257 OF 2016

¶6

Between:

¶7

S.N. Manohar, S/o. Late Nagaraju, rep. by Its Power of Attorney, M Harish Kumar, S/o. H.D. Maranna, age 43 years, R/o. # 168/F, Cross, 5*^ Main J.P. Nagar, III Phase, Bangalore, Karnataka. ...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^Industries& Commerce Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶10

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Deputy Secretary,^Industries& Commerce Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh 8th floor, BRKR Bhavan, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶12

Assistant Director of Mines and Geology (Vigilance) Gooty, Anantapur District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 writ, order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of 4‘^ respondent in Demand Notice No.707/(2)/Vg/V&E/Vg-Gooty/Granite-QLS/2012,^dt.09-05- 2012 and the orders of 2"^^ respondent in Lr.No.5476/M.i(1)/2015 -1, dt.0312-2015 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unconstitutional in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.

¶15

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 18920 OF 2016)

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances /Stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the Demand Notice IN ojTt) 7/(2) A/g A/& E G ooty/G ra n i te QLS/2012, dt.09-05-2012 of 4*^ respondent and orders of 2 nd respondent in Lr.No.5476/M.I(1)/2015-1 dt.03-12-2015 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT. N. SHOBA

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶19

The Court at the stage of admission made the following:^ORDER

APHC010549962016

1 ■ ■ I ■ ■ •• 3^!

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶24

[3310]

¶25

MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO: 15257/2016

Between:

S.n. Manohar,

...PETITIONER

AND

State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal Secretary ...RESPONDENT(S) and Others

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶35

1.N SHOBA

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP)

¶38

The Court made the following Order:

¶39

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶40

seeking the following relief:

¶41

" to issue writ, order or direction more particularly^onein the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of 4 th respondent In issuing Demand Notice No 707/2A/gA/EA/g-Gooty/Granite-QLS/2012, dt 09.05.2012^and the orders of 2""' respondent in Lr.No.5476/M.1(1)72015-1 dt 03.12.2015 as arbitrary, Illegal, unjust, unconstitutional in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary^totheA.P Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and pass such^other

¶42

¶43

order or orders as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice ”

¶44

The case of the petitioner in brief is that one Mr Ravindra was granted quarry lease over an extent of 3.000 hectares in Sy.No.269 of Beedupally Village, Puttaparthi Mandal, Anantapur District for a period of 20 years and the said quarry lease was transferred in favour of the petitioner for the un-expired portion of the lease period upto 28.08.2028 by the Director of Mines and Geology in proceedings, dated 11.03.2010 and work orders were issued in proceedings No.266/Q2/CG/07, dated 07.05.2010. Since the date of grant, the petitioner has been operating the quarry without any complaints from any corner. While so, the petitioner was served show-cause notice, dated 26.04.2012 by the office of Assistant Director of Mines and Geology stating that they have inspected the quarry lease area on 08.09.2011. On receipt of the said show-cause notice, the petitioner has submitted explanation on 05.05.2012. But, without considering the said explanation,^DemandNotice No.707(2)A/ & EA/g-Gooty/Granite-2012, dated 09.05.2012 was issued by the 4*^ respondent. Against the same, appeal was filed before the O"'' respondent and thereafter, Revision was also filed before the 1 St respondent on 05.03.2015. The petitioner received Lr.No.5473/M.I(1)/2015-1, dated 03.02.2015 returning the revision filed by the petitioner without assigning any reasons. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present Writ Petition is filed.

Heard Smt Vijayalakshmi, learned counsel representing^onbehalf of Smt N.Shoba, learned counsel for the petitioner^{andthelearnedAssistant} Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondents.

¶49

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has submitted explanation to the show-cause notice issued by the 4‘^ respondent, dated 26.04.2012, the 4*^ respondent^{hasnotconsidered} the same and passed the impugned demand Notice No.707/(2)A/gA/ & EA/gGooty/Granite-QLS/2012, dated 09.05.2012 which is illegal, arbitrary and hence, requests to pass appropriate orders.

¶50

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents opposed for grant of any relief in this Writ Petition and prays to dismiss the same.

¶51

Considering the submissions of both the learned counsels,^the notice passed by the 4'^ respondent vide Demand Notice No.707/(2)A/ & EA/g-Gooty/Granite-QLS/2012, dated 09.05.2012 and the order passed by the 2"" respondent vide Letter No.5476/M.l(1)/2015-1, dated 03.12.2015 are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 4*^ respondent for fresh consideration. The 4‘^ respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate reasoned order, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

^ 'V/ \

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned counsels. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand

¶59

closed.

¶60

//TRUE COPY//

¶61

Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI assistant registrar

¶62

To,

¶63

SEC FICER

¶64

& Commerce Department State of , Guntur

¶65

DisWct Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati InHh?f & Commerce Department State of olllriS. S^retariat, Velagapudi, Amarav^rc^tr?

¶66

ftoor^BRKR D®°'5?,y’ Government of Andhra Pradesh, floor, BRKR Bhavan, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. AnlntepLfD"i'stricr*°'' °®°'°9'' (Vigilance) Gooty,

¶67

One CC to Smt. N. Shoba, Advocate [OPUC]

¶68

Gf’for IVlines and Geology, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶69

Three C.D. Copies.

Cnr

\ \

HIGH COURT

\
\
<br>

DATED:02/12/2024

ORDER

WP.No.15257 of 2016

#8^
;/0
2 9 MAY 2025 * 2 <|l,:
5^

¶79

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS

S.N. Manohar, v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.N. Manohar, v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhumireddy Subbarayudu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M Jagedeeswara Reddy Vs The State Bank of India

Setti Appala Naidu Vs the State of Ap

M/s. A.V.M. College Staff Cooperative House Building Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Umamaheswari, W/o.Ramakoti, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gantayath Abhinash, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh