M/S Sreenivasa Minerals Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

“…. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus challenging the demand notice No.915/GL/2019 dated 21.12.2024 issued by the 3^rd respondent and stopped the permits to the petitioner’s quarry lease for dolomite to an extent of Ac.4.990 Hectors in Sy.No.328/B of Chandana Village, Yadki Mandal, Ananthapuram District, without

¶23

2

¶24

furnishing the documents of vigilance enquiry and without considering the representations made by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and contrary to the repeated rulings given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1988 SC 1301 and consequently quash the demand notice dated 21.12.2024 issued by the 3^rd respondent and direct the respondents to furnish the documents of vigilance enquiry and issue the permits to the petitioner quarry lease for dolomite to an extent of 4.990 Hectors in Sy. No.328/B of Chandana Village, Yadki Mandal, Ananthapuram District and pass …”

¶25

The case of the petitioner in brief is that thepetitioner was granted a quarry lease for dolomite in survey No.328-B of Chandana village, Yadiki Mandal, Anantapuramu District over an extent of 4.990 Hectorsby the second respondent herein vide proceedings No.4926/B11-ATP/2021, dated 22.09.2022 for a period of 20 years under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1966. Thus, during the period from 12.11.2022 to 31.07.2023 the petitioner has obtained permits for a quantity of 1,24,389M tonnes. While so, on 31.07.2023 five officials from Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Office, Anantapuram and others inspected the quarry in the presence of the petitioner and submitted joint inspection report. Basing on the said joint inspection report, the Inspector General and EO Secretary to the Government vide appraisal repot No.12 C.No.485 V&E/NR/2018, dated 06.03.2024 advised the first respondent to realize an amount of Rs.4,15,91,000/- from the petitioner alleging that the permits obtained by the petitioner are in excess of the quantity that is actually produced. The first respondent in turn referred this to the second respondent,

¶26

3

¶27

who, inturn vide memo No.8809V&E/VG/2024, dated 01.10.2024 instructed the third respondent to take immediate necessary action on the report dated 06.03.2024. Basing on the said report received from second respondent, the third respondent issued show cause notice 915/QL/2019, dated 23.10.2024 to the petitioner, but the said show cause notice was given without supplying various documents referred therein. Therefore, the petitioner herein vide letter dated 02.11.2024 requested the third respondent to furnish relevant documents relied upon for raising the demand. In reply to the said letter, the third respondent furnished the documents, which are not legible to make out anything. However, the petitioner while requesting for supply of clear and legible maps, partly answered to the show cause notice vide his letter dated 17.12.2024. In the said reply, it is categorically stated that further reply will be submitted soon after the legible documents are made available. The third respondent without supplying the said legible documents, raised the impugned demand notice No.915/QL/2019, dated 21.12.2024. Aggrieved by the said notice, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶28

Heard Smt Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for Respondents.

¶29

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 17.12.2024 to the show-cause notice, dated 23.10.2024, issued by the 3^rd respondent, the 3^rd respondent has issued the impugned Demand Notice No.915/QL/2019, dated 21.12.2024,

¶30

4

¶31

which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests to pass appropriate orders.

¶32

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

¶33

Considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, in the opinion of this Court, the 3^rd respondent being the quasi judicial authority has to record reasons while passing the order. But, the 3^rd respondent herein without recording any reasons has passed the impugned demand notice, dated 21.12.2024. This Court in number of cases has directed the respondents to pass appropriate reasoned orders. But, the respondent authorities are not obeying the orders of this Court and are not passing reasoned orders, which is illegal, arbitrary and hence, the impugned demand notice is liable to be set aside.

¶34

Accordingly the impugned Demand Notice bearing No.915/QL/2019, dated 21.12.2024, issued by the 3^rd respondent is hereby set aside. The 3^rd respondent is directed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated17.12.2024 and pass appropriate reasoned orders, in accordance with law, after furnishing the documents sought for by the petitioner, and after affording opportunity to the petitioner herein,within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

5

¶36