Allowed

H. Imam Sab, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC25 Sept 2018WP/34503/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an arbitrary demand notice for penalty imposed due to alleged extraction of granite beyond licensed limits. The court held that the authority violated natural justice by failing to consider the petitioner's explanation, rendering the notice unsustainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy.

What did the court decide?

Impugned demand notice No.1853/Q2/CG/2016 dated 18.08.2018 set aside; Authority directed to pass fresh order after considering explanation.

H. Imam Sab, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.34503 of 2018

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology.

¶5

The demand notice, bearing No.1853/Q2/CG/2016, dated 18.08.2018, issued by the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Anantapuram/R.3 herein demanding a sum of Rs.17,80,61,720/- towards the penalty amount of double sale value of the granite for the excavation and transportation of 8726 Cbm., Colour Granite blocks from outside the leased area and missed quantity of 176.446 cbm., is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

¶6

The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology/R.3 herein issued a show cause notice bearing No.1853/Q2/C.G/2016, dated 17.02.2018, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken for the alleged violation of A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (hereinafter, referred to, as ‘the Rules’), while alleging that the petitioner herein excavated and transported 8727.64 Cbm., of colour granite in contravention of the said Rules. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner herein submitted an explanation on 20.03.2018 narrating various aspects. In the said explanation, the petitioner herein also stated that though the show cause notice refers to a survey, such survey was not conducted in the presence of the petitioner herein and no notice was issued for

¶7

WP.No.34503/2018 AVSS,J

¶8

¶9

holding such survey and inspection. After receipt of the said explanation, the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology/R.3 herein issued the impugned demand notice bearing No. 1853/Q2/CG/2016, dated 18.08.2018, directing to pay the penalty amount of double sale value of the granite for the excavation and transportation of 8726 Cbm., Colour Granite blocks from outside the leased area and missed quantity of 176.446 cbm.

¶10

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned demand notice is highly arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and violative of the principles of natural justice besides being opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Rules.

¶11

In elaboration, it is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, though the petitioner herein submitted an elaborate reply to the show cause notice, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Eluru-third respondent herein did not consider the contents of the same and, had the contents of the explanation been considered by the third respondent, the order impugned would not have emanated.

¶12

On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that there is absolutely no illegality nor there exists any procedural infirmity in the impugned action and, in the absence of the same, the questioned action is not amenable for any judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that, in view of the availability of alternative

¶13

WP.No.34503/2018 AVSS,J

¶14

¶15

remedy of appeal, under Rule 35 of the Rules, the present Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable.

¶16

A perusal of the material available before this Court, in clear and vivid terms, discloses that, in response to the show cause notice, issued by the third respondent herein, petitioner herein submitted an elaborate explanation on 20.03.2018, touching various aspects of the matter, and also made a request to furnish certain documents.

¶17

A perusal of the impugned demand notice shows that, except showing the show cause notice, as one of the references in the impugned demand notice, the third respondent herein did not make any endeavour to consider the contents of the explanation offered by the petitioner herein. Having issued the show cause notice and having acknowledged the explanation, offered by the petitioner herein, there is absolutely no justification on the part of the third respondent, in not considering the contents of the explanation, submitted by the petitioner herein, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. In view of the above, the impugned demand notice cannot be sustained and the contention of the learned Government Pleader that, in view of the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal, under Rule 35 of the Rules, Writ Petition is not maintainable cannot be sustained in view of the violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶18

WP.No.34503/2018 AVSS,J

¶19

¶20

For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned demand notice, bearing No.1853/Q2/CG/2016, dated 18.08.2018, issued by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Eluru-third respondent herein. However, it is open for the third respondent herein to pass an order, afresh, after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner herein. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶22

_________________ A.V.Sesha Sai, J 25^th September, 2018 smr

H. Imam Sab, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H. Imam Sab, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Jayadsudha, Vs Prl.Secy., Muni.Admin.dept., State of T.S.

L. Sreenivasulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Venkateswara Rao Vs Govt of Ap

Nambi Hanumanthu , Kuruva Hanumanthu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Viswa Wines Vs State of Ap

Mr.Churaman Singh, Vs The State of Telangana