Dismissed¶36

Puligadda Sambasiva Rao v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Mar 2026WP/34012/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Puligadda Sambasiva Rao v. State of AP; Writ Petition No. 34012/2025; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam; decided 09.03.2026; final demand notice dt.30.10.2025; show cause notice dt.25.08.2025; No.3009/PGRS-Complaint/2025-10; PGRS complaint; District Mines and Geology Officer, Bapatla; Tahsildar, Kolluru Mandal; Ministry of Industries and Mines; Article 226; writ of mandamus; Section 151 CPC; IA No. 1 of 2025; WP.8356 of 2020; WP.12334 of 2021; dismissed as withdrawn; liberty to work out legal remedies; no order as to costs; pending applications closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to work out his legal remedies in accordance with law; no order as to costs; all pending applications closed as a sequel. ¶36

Puligadda Sambasiva Rao Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to work out his legal remedies in accordance with law; no order as to costs; all pending applications closed as a sequel.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the respondent authorities in issuing the final demand notice dated 30.10.2025 (No.3009/PGRS-Complaint/2025-10) and the show cause notice dated 25.08.2025 (No.3009/PGRS-Complaint/2025-10) is illegal, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction, warranting quashing by writ of mandamus.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

On the joint submissions of counsel, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn; liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his legal remedies in accordance with law; there shall be no order as to costs; and, as a sequel, all pending applications stand closed. The petition having been permitted to be withdrawn, no merits adjudication was rendered on the legality of the impugned notices.

¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati, Writ Petition No. 34012 of 2025, decided 09.03.2026 (Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J.). The petitioner, aggrieved by a final demand notice dated 30.10.2025 (No.3009/PGRS-Complaint/2025-10) and a show cause notice dated 25.08.2025 (No.3009/PGRS-Complaint/2025-10) issued by the respondent authorities, sought a writ of mandamus declaring those actions illegal, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction, invoking the law laid down in WP.8356 of 2020 and WP.12334 of 2021, and had moved IA No. 1 of 2025 under Section 151 CPC to suspend the operation of the notices pending disposal of the petition. At hearing, counsel for the petitioner sought permission to furnish all the writ petition documents in order to work out appropriate legal remedies, to which the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Mines and Geology raised no objection. The Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, granted the petitioner liberty to work out his legal remedies in accordance with law, made no order as to costs, and closed all pending applications as a sequel. No merits finding was rendered on the validity of the demand or show cause notices.

¶1

¶2

APHC010656132025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3504]

¶6

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 34012/2025

¶10

Between:

¶11

PULIGADDA SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O. VENKATRAMAIAH, CHERUKUPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT - 522309

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND MINES, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶15

THE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, BAPATIA, BAPATIA DISTRICT.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR, KOLLURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 a writ or order or direction with more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent authorities in issuing a final demand notice, dt.30.10.2025 vide No.3009/PGRSComplaint/2025-10 as illegal, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction as well as authority and consequently set aside the Demand Notice, vide Notice dt.30.10.2025 vide No.3009/PGRS-Complaint/2025-10 and the Show Cause

¶19

¶20

Notice vide notice, dt.25.08.2025, No.3009/PGRS-Complaint/2025-10 as per the law laid down the Hon’ble High Court in WP.8356 of 2020 WP.12334 of 2021 and pass orders.

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

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 operation of Demand Notice vide Notice dt.30.10.2025 vide No.3009/PGRS-Complaint/2025-10 and the Show Cause Notice vide Notice, dt.25.08.2025, No.3009/PGRS-Complaint/2025-10 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass orders.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.N SRIHARI

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

2.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 34012 of 2025

¶31

ORDER:-

¶32

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer:

¶33

“to issue a writ or order or direction with more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent authorities in issuing a final demand notice, dt.30.10.2025 vide No.3009/PGRS-Complaint/2025-10 as illegal, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction as well as authority and consequently set aside the Demand Notice, vide Notice dt.30.10.2025 vide No.3009/PGRS-Complaint/202510 and the Show Cause Notice vide notice, dt.25.08.2025, No.3009/PGRS-Complaint/2025-10 as per the law laid down the Honble High Court in WP 8356 of 2020 WP 12334 of 2021 and pass…”

¶34

Sri N.Srihari, learned counsel of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Mines and Geology, Andhra Pradesh.

¶35

When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri N. Srihari, learned counsel for the petitioner, sought permission to furnish all the writ petition documents in order to work out appropriate legal remedies. The learned Assistant Government Pleader raised no objection to the same.

¶36

In view of the submissions made by both counsel, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his legal remedies in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.

¶38

____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

Date: 09.03.2026 RMR

264

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶43