M/s Kishore Granites Pvt.Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY/SPL.CHIEF SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE (MINES) DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DIST.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SRI ANJANEYA TOWERS, IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶17

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

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

¶20

2

¶21

pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari by calling for the records in connection with the 3rd Respondent proceedings dt.19.12.2020 vide Notice No. 2112/Q/2005 and quash the same and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶23

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 suspend the proceedings dt.19.12.2020 vide Notice No. 2112/Q/2005, issued by the 3rd Respondent, pending disposal of writ petition and pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.P ROY REDDY

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 1441 of 2021

¶32

ORDER:-

¶33

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article

¶34

226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer:

¶35

“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari by calling for the records in connection with the 3^rd Respondent proceedings dt.19.12.2020 vide Notice No. 2112/Q/2005 and quash the same and pass…”

¶36

Heard Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology.

¶37

The writ petitioner was granted a quarry lease for a period of 20 years, valid up to 17.04.2028, for excavation of black granite over an extent of 4.100 hectors in Sy. Nos. 107/1, 108/P, 95/P, 112/2P, 113/2P and 113/3P of Gurijepalli Village, Santhamaguluru Mandal, Prakasam District, under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1956 and the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.

¶38

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent, by pointing out certain deficiencies, issued Show Cause Notice No. 2112/Q/2005 dated 19.12.2020, calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. Challenging the said show-cause notice, the present writ petition has been instituted.

¶39

4

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, granted an interim order dated 27.01.2021 in favour of the petitioner, and the said interim order is still in force.

¶41

Conversely, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology submits that, due to certain specific shortfalls in the subject property within the leased area, the show-cause notice dated 19.12.2020 was issued, and the same is well within the statutory framework.

¶42

At this juncture, Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly submits that the petitioner may be permitted to submit a comprehensive explanation along with relevant documents to the 3^rd respondent, and that the same may be considered by affording due opportunity to the petitioner by passing appropriate orders.

¶43

The learned Assistant Government Pleader does not dispute the said request.

¶44

Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and the submissions made by the respective counsel, it is evident that the petitioner has challenged only the show-cause notice. It is well settled that a showcause notice can be interfered with only in exceptional circumstances, such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of fundamental rights, or breach of principles of natural justice. In the present case, the petitioner has not demonstrated the existence of any of the aforesaid grounds.

¶45

5

¶46

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to submit his explanation within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Upon receipt of such explanation, the competent authority shall consider the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and pass a speaking order, and communicate the same to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.

¶48

____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

Date: 12.03.2026 RMR

6

304

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM