Allowed

S. Thirupathi Reddy, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC17 Feb 2012WP/4423/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a demand notice issued by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology before the expiry of the seven-day reply period granted in the show-cause notice. The single-judge bench held that the premature issuance rendered the notice void ab initio and violated natural justice, quashing the impugned notice. The petitioner was directed to submit a fresh explanation within th

What did the court decide?

The demand notice dated 06-01-2012 is set aside and quashed. The petitioner is directed to submit an explanation to the show-cause notice dated 05-12-2011 within three days.

S. Thirupathi Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD

¶4

Writ Petition No.4423 of 2012

¶5

Between:

¶6

S. Thirupathi Reddy .. Petitioner

¶7

AND

¶8

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

Notice before admission. The learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology entered appearance for all the three respondents.

¶11

2. The petitioner claims to be the agreement holder for two years in respect of Itikyala Sand Reach, Luxettipet Mandal, Adilabad District and claims to be conducting quarrying operations strictly in tune with the terms and conditions of the lease deed. While so, he was served with a demand notice, dated 06-01-2012

¶12

in pursuance of an inspection said to have been made on 05-052011 and a show-cause notice issued on 05-12-2011. The demand notice specifies the show-cause notice to have been served on 30-12-2011 and to have been issued, as no reply was received on the show-cause notice. The demand notice was received on 21-01-2012 and the petitioner challenges the same as being in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶13

3. In view of the nature of the claim and the relief requested and on the admitted facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is being disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission. Heard Smt. N. Shoba, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Reddy R., learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology.

¶14

4. The impugned demand notice itself specified that the show-cause notice was served on the petitioner under acknowledgement on 30-12-2011. The calculation of expiry of the given time of seven days to be elapsing by 05-01-2012 is incomprehensible and unintelligible and to say that the petitioner had not submitted any reply and therefore, it is construed that he has no explanation to offer, is the claim, which cannot be supported on such admitted facts. If the show-cause notice was served on 30-12-2011 and the petitioner has seven days time to submit his explanation, the impugned notice was issued on 06-012012 even before expiry of the said period in obvious haste and is in patent violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice. Any administrative action whether specified in the relevant provisions or not, has to be in conformity with the basic principles

¶15

of natural justice and therefore, the demand notice, ex facie, cannot be sustained, though it will be open to the 3^rd respondent to proceed further afresh in accordance with law.

¶16

5. Therefore, the demand notice No.795/SAND/2010, dated 06-01-2012 issued by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Mancherial is set aside and quashed and the petitioner shall submit his explanation to the show-cause notice No.795/SAND/2010, dated 05-12-2011 within three days from the date of receipt of these orders and the 3^rd respondent Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Mancherial is at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on merits on receipt of such explanation and after due consideration of the same and the writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶17

_____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J

¶18

Date: 17-02-2012

¶19

Svv

S. Thirupathi Reddy, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Thirupathi Reddy, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunkesula Gram Panchayat, rep by its Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its

Padidempadu Gram Panchayat Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sinka Sambasiva Rao Vs The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology

J. Kishan, Vs The Gram Panchayat

V. Srinivas Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary

P.V.P. Gupta, Vs The District Panchayat Officer