‘ 21. The petitioners contended that no notice was given to them prior to inspection. We fail to understand as to what purpose would be served if notice is issued prior to a surprise inspection, when there has been an allegation that illicit mining is being carried on. The authorities being empowered to enter into the quarry by virtue of the power under Section 24(1) of the Central Act, the petitioners cannot insist that they should be put on prior notice before conducting the surprise inspection as in these cases. Therefore, this is not a case of denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioners, but it is seen that the petitioner has been given show cause notice and thereafter on his request, the copy of the inspection report was also furnished and even in the impugned order as well as in the counter affidavit, there is a specific averment that the inspection was carried out in the presence of the lessee/employee. Therefore, we do not agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, we find no justification for the petitioners to by-pass the appellate remedy. More so, when the issue involves serious disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. The allegation against the petitioners is that they exceeded their boundary limit and carried out illicit mining in Government Poromboke land. This aspect is essentially a pure question of fact and this Court cannot, based on affidavits decide whether the petitioners crossed the boundary line and did mining operations beyond the demarcated leasehold area. This is all the more a reason that the petitioner should file an appeal. ‘
