M/s Sri Surya Granites Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S SRI SURYA GRANITES, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SMT.B.VENKAYAMMA, OFFICE AT KOTI REDDY BAZAR, GANDHI NAGAR, 1ST LANE, CHIMAKURTHY VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523226

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE (MINES) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238

¶15

THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, 2ND FLOOR, MAYURI TECH PARK, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522503.

¶16

THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523001.

¶17

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGYCUMDISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523001.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY RVS,

¶19

2

¶20

ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523001

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

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 toPleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of a writ of Mandamus to declare the Demand Notice vide bearing Notice No.5611/Q/2010 dated 18.06.2026 and its consequential Errata vide bearing Proc.No.5611/Q/2010 dated 20.06.2026 issued by the Respondent No.4 as per se illegal, manifestly arbitrary, null and void, dehors jurisdiction and application of mind and ultra vires the vested powers, whimsical, colourable, politically motivated, erroneous, irrational, illogical, unjust, unreasonable, contrary to the doctrine of lis pendens, Mines and Minerals Development Act, Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules and Granite Conservation and Development Rules and opposed to the very spirit and object of Fundamental and Constitutional Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India besides being Violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently to set aside the same and/or pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶24

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 Pleased to suspend the Demand Notice vide bearing Notice No.5611/Q/2010 dated 18.06.2026 and its consequential Errata vide bearing Proc.No.5611/Q/2010 dated 20.06.2026 issued by the Respondent No.4 and/or pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.RAM BABU DEVAVARAPU

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶29

2.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

3

¶32

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO: 16864/2026

¶34

ORDER:-

¶35

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India

¶36

seeking the following reliefs:-

¶37

“to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the Demand Notice vide bearing Notice No.5611/Q/2010 dated 18.06.2026 and its consequential Errata vide bearing Proc.No.5611/Q/2010 dated 20.06.2026 issued by the Respondent No.4 as per se illegal, manifestly arbitrary, null and void, dehors jurisdiction and application of mind and ultra vires the vested powers, whimsical, colourable, politically motivated, erroneous, irrational, illogical, unjust, unreasonable, contrary to the doctrine of lis pendens, Mines and Minerals Development Act, Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules and Granite Conservation and Development Rules and opposed to the very spirit and object of Fundamental and Constitutional Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India besides being Violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently to set aside the same and pass such other order or orders….”

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.4 issued a show cause notice dated 27.05.2026 to the petitioner calling for explanation on the ground of violation of Rule 7A(i) of APMMC Rules, 1966 and Rule 19(1) of the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999. For which, the petitioner herein submitted a detailed explanation on 10.06.2026. But without considering the same, the petitioner herein was issued a demand notice dated 18.06.2026 on the ground of assumption and

¶40

4

¶41

presumption without there being any feasible determination and to come to a definite conclusion of differential quantity between total salable granite and dispatch permit obtained by the petitioner is contrary to the known procedure ( Audi alteram partem ) and principles of natural justice.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the findings of the Revisional Authority in the case of M/s.VIVA Granites, the similar question, which came for determination before the authority, which held as under:

¶43

“The Revision Petition submitted an elaborate explanation disputing both the factual and legal basis of the show cause notice. It was contended that Black Galaxy Granite is a highly heterogeneous dimensional stone deposit, with recovery varying drastically depending on geological conditions, joint spacing, cracks, colour variation, buyer specifications and market demand. The petitioner emphasized that recovery percentage mentioned in a mining plan is only a planning and feasibility parameter and cannot be elevated to a statutory norm for determination of production or levy of seigniorage fee. Extensive reliance was placed on studies and findings of the Granite Development Council constituted by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, which categorically concluded that recovery of granite cannot be predetermined and that recovery factor have no relevance in estimation of royalty. It was further contended that the entire quantity of saleable granite produced by the petitioner was dispatched only under valid permits issued after departmental inspection and that there is no allegation or evidence of transport without permits, excess dispatch or suppression of statutory returns. The petitioner also furnished explanations to each of the alleged GCDR violations and relied upon judicial precedents to contend that penalty cannot be imposed in the absence of deliberate and contumacious violation.”

¶44

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that

¶45

non-consideration of the due explanation submitted by the petitioner to the

¶46

5

¶47

show cause notice and without providing opportunity of hearing while determining the difference of quantity is fatal to the any speaking order while determining the difference of quantity of mineral excavation, the petitioner should be put on notice and to be heard, then the quantity of difference would be determined. As such, it is requested to remand the matter for fresh consideration by the competent respondent authorities.

¶48

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that the explanation dated 10.06.2026 submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice dated 27.05.2026 is not duly considered except stating that no much is there for consideration. Whereas in similar circumstances, the Revisional Authority passed an order dated 09.03.2026, the same was extracted supra. Therefore, the impugned demand notice dated 18.06.2026 is contrary to the facts in hand and also the analysis made in Revisional order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the Revisional Authority.

¶49

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of, with the following directions:

¶50

i. The impugned demand notice dated 18.06.2026 is hereby set aside;

¶51

ii. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 herein are directed to consider

¶52

the explanation dated 10.06.2026 submitted pursuant to the

¶53

6

¶54

show cause notice dated 27.05.2026 and pass a speaking order with reference to the Revisional order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the Revisional Authority as mentioned above, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after providing opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. If necessary, the petitioner would be permitted to submit any additional documents in proof of quantity of excavation of material or to contravene difference of quantity as determined;

¶55

iii. The respondents are directed to communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶56