Southern Rocks And Minerals ... vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 5360 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

           WRIT PETITION Nos. 25764 AND 25771 OF 2021



COMMON ORDER:

      The challenge in the writ petition Nos.25764 and 25771 of 2021 is to

the quarry lease determination proceedings No.3304740/Vg/2020-3, dated

11.10.2021 and consequential demand notice respectively issued by the 2nd

respondent / Director of Mines and Geology (for short "DMG").

2. Shorn of lengthy details, suffice to say that the petitioner holds three

leases for black galaxy granite in respect of (i) 2.729 hectares in

Sy.No.21/11 to 13, 25P, 26, 27/P and 28/P (ii) 2.223 hectares in Sy.No.988/2

and (iii) 2.356 hectares in Sy.No.60/P, 101/1P, 102/P in R.L. Puram Village,

Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. These leases are for a period of 20

years and will last till 2028-32. On a turn of events, the petitioner filed

W.P.Nos.10994, 10996 and 11006 of 2021 challenging the show cause

notices, consequential demand notices and quarry lease determination orders

passed by the 2nd respondent/DMG. The Mines Department filed counter

and opposed the writ petitions. This Court passed order dated 23.08.2021 as

follows:

"26. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed by setting aside the impugned demand notices and quarry lease determination orders issued by 2nd respondent with a direction to consider the detailed explanation dated 04.01.2021 submitted by the petitioner against the show cause notices and after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner and its technical experts, pass an appropriate order in accordance with the governing law and Rules expeditiously."

3. Pursuant to the above common order, some turn of events took place

which led the petitioner to file batch of writ petitions including the present

writ petitions.

4. Petitioner's case succinctly is thus:

(a) After common order was passed on 23.08.2021, the petitioner filed

review petition in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in all three writ petitions i.e.,

W.P.No.10994, 10996 and 11006 of 2021 on the ground that this Court did

not consider and address one document filed by the writ petitioner i.e., Ex-

P27 - a copy of the writ appeal No.218 of 2021 and grounds of sworn

affidavit petition in the said writ appeal filed by the 2nd respondent wherein,

respondents have pronounced their decision in advance even before the

disposal of the explanation dated 04.01.2021 submitted by the petitioner

against the show cause notices. The said document was an important

document which would depict the predetermined hostility of the respondents

against the petitioner and if the said document was considered, the writ

petitions would have been allowed.

(b) The further case of the writ petitioner is that while the review

petitions were pending, the 2nd respondent sent a letter

No.3304740/Vg/2020-3, dated 13.09.2021 to the petitioner directing him to

appear before him on 06.10.2021 for personal hearing pursuant to the

direction contained in the common order dated 23.08.2021 passed in

W.P.Nos.10994, 10996 and 11006 of 2021. However, since the review

petitions were pending before this Court, the petitioner vide letters dated

01.10.2021, 05.10.2021 and 06.10.2021 (on 06.10.2021 petitioner's

authorized representative personally attended) has requested the 2nd

respondent / DMG to adjourn the hearing to some other date in view of

pending review petitions. All the review petitions were listed before this

Court on 05.10.2021 and on the request of learned Government Pleader, they

were adjourned to 22.10.2021 to file objections against the review petitions.

The said fact was also informed to the 2nd respondent / DMG on 06.10.2021.

However, the 2nd respondent / DMG held his prejudicial and biased attitude

towards the petitioner, and without affording an opportunity of personal

hearing, passed impugned lease determination order dated 11.10.2021 and

on the same date issued the impugned demand notice. Thus, principles of

natural justice were again violated by the 2nd respondent. Hence, the writ

petitions.

5. Respondents did not file counter.

6. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri T. Sreedhar

and learned Additional Advocate General representing respondents.

7. The main plank of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is

that in the common order, this Court in respect of Point No.3 set up for

consideration, has categorically held that in spite of petitioner in his written

explanation sought for personal hearing to make an effective presentation of

his case with the aid of experts, the 2nd respondent did not afford and thereby

the 2nd respondent has grossly violated the principles of natural justice.

Learned counsel would emphasize that on such observation this Court

allowed the earlier batch of three writ petitions and set aside the impugned

demand notices and quarry lease determination orders passed by the 2nd

respondent and gave a direction to consider the detailed explanation of the

petitioner and also afford a personal hearing to the petitioner and its

technical experts and pass appropriate order. Learned counsel would further

submit that no doubt the 2nd respondent fixed the personal hearing date as

06.10.2021. However, even before that the writ petitioner filed review

petitions as against common order requesting the Court to consider the vital

document i.e., grounds of sworn affidavit petition filed by the present

respondents in Writ Appeal No.218 of 2021 and when the review petitions

came up for hearing on 05.10.2021, the learned Government Pleader sought

adjournment for filing counter and hence posted to 22.10.2021. In those

circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to address letters dt:

01.10.2021, 05.10.2021 and 06.10.2021 to adjourn the personal hearing.

However, without either informing the petitioner that his request was turned

down and personal hearing was re-fixed to a particular date peremptorily or

conducting personal hearing on 06.10.2021 as scheduled, the 2nd respondent

passed order dated 11.10.2021 without affording personal hearing to the

petitioner. In that view, learned counsel would submit, the purpose of the

direction in the common order which in clear tone ordained that the 2nd

respondent shall afford a personal hearing to the petitioner and his technical

experts was defeated. Immediately thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued

consequent demand notice on the same date i.e., 11.10.2021. Hence, both

the impugned order as well as the demand notice which are unjust and illegal

in the eye of law have to be set aside.

8. In oppugnation, learned Additional Advocate General (for short

"AAG") vehemently argued that at no point of time, whether prior to the

common order or subsequently, the petitioner evinced true intention to

appear before the 2nd respondent / DMG to submit his case. His only

intention was to dragon the proceedings as long as possible to deprive the

Government of its legitimate revenue. He would further submit that in due

obedience to common order of this Court, the 2nd respondent fixed the date

of personal hearing on 06.10.2021 with a view to settle the matter

expeditiously. However, the petitioner sought adjournment of personal

hearing on the pretext that they filed review petition in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in

W.P.No.10994 of 2021 and batch. Learned AAG would further submit that

since there was no interim stay in the review petitions restraining the

department from conducting the personal hearing, the 2nd respondent has

taken up hearing on 06.10.2021 but the petitioner on a lame pretext did not

get ready. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to avail relief granted by this

Court in its common order. In that view, the 2nd respondent having regard to

the material available on record passed impugned order which is perfectly

valid in the eye of law. Having negatived the contention of the petitioner in

its explanation, the 2nd respondent passed lease determination order on

11.10.2021 and issued consequential demand notice. Learned AAG

concluded that in the entire process, the petitioner has to blame himself for

not utilizing the opportunity accorded by the 2nd respondent pursuant to the

direction of this Court. As there are no merits in his case, the writ petitions

may be dismissed.

9. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ

petitions to allow?

10. Point: I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective

arguments of both the counsel. As can be seen from the paragraph-24 of

common order dated 23.08.2021, the fundamental reason for allowing the

said batch is that the petitioner's report was not considered and no plausible

reason was given for its non-consideration and thereby the 2nd respondent

has grossly violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, while

allowing the writ petitions, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider

the detailed explanation dated 04.01.2021 submitted by the petitioner and

after affording personal hearing to the petitioner and its technical experts,

pass an appropriate order in accordance with governing law and rules

expeditiously. So the avowed purpose and objective of aforesaid order is to

give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and its technical

experts to convince the 2nd respondent that the inspection report submitted

by the departmental officials does not reflect true facts and on the other hand

the experts' report submitted by the petitioner is the correct one so that the

2nd respondent can weigh both the reports and adjudicate the matter in a

proper manner.

(a) Principles of natural justice sprouted on the bedrock of law of

equity. That is why the world over has accepted the principles of natural

justice and implemented with avowed respect in the adjudicatory process.

How so ever grave accusation against a person may be, still he deserves a

listening to his version by the adjudicatory machinery whether it be a

judicial or quashi judicial authority. Justice must not only be done but must

appear to be done is another rule of law. It imbibes in it the principle that

even a loser must be satisfied that he was given a fair opportunity to present

his case and procedural fairness was observed throughout the process of

adjudication. Otherwise a judgment may be anything but justice.

11. Keeping the above rules of law on administration of justice in view

when the case on hand is perused, true that the 2nd respondent in compliance

of the common order, fixed the date of personal hearing on 06.10.2021.

However, since the petitioner has already filed review petition as against the

common order, it appears he made a representation through his authorized

representative bringing to the notice of the 2nd respondent that the review

petition was filed and pending and listed to 22.10.2021. His submission is

that if the review petition were to be allowed, the original common order

may be modified, in which case the enquiry by the 2nd respondent may not

be necessary. Be that it may, in the review application no stay was granted

by this Court restraining the 2nd respondent from proceeding with the

personal hearing and adjudicate upon the matter pending before him.

Technically the 2nd respondent's action in declining the petitioner's request

and passing order on 11.10.2021 may be correct. However, what ultimately

surfaces on the substratum of the impugned order is a denude of personal

hearing.

12. In my considered view both the parties are responsible to some extent

for the present situation. Petitioner is concerned, since there was no stay in

review application, he must have appeared before the 2nd respondent on

06.10.2021 with all preparedness to argue his case in the event the 2nd

respondent did not agree to grant adjournment. At the same time, the 2nd

respondent is concerned, if he did not wish to wait till the disposal of the

review petition, he ought to have fixed a date for personal hearing and after

hearing the petitioner and its experts, ought to have passed the order.

Therefore, both are not infallible. Having regard to these facts and

circumstances, in my considered view, one more opportunity should be

given to the petitioner for personal hearing, of course, on suitable terms.

13. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and lease determination

proceedings No.3304740/Vg/2020-3, dated 11.10.2021 and consequential

demand notice No.3304740/Vg/2020-3, dated 11.10.2021 are set aside on

the condition of petitioner depositing normal seigniorage fee of

Rs.24,00,000/- within six (6) weeks from today. Upon such deposit, the 2nd

respondent shall fix the date for personal hearing and consider the detailed

explanation dated 04.01.2021 submitted by the petitioner as against the show

cause notice and hear the petitioner and its technical experts and pass an

appropriate order in accordance with governing law and rules expeditiously.

In the event the petitioner failed to deposit the amount stated supra, this

order shall be deemed cancelled. No costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 20.12.2021 krk

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

Writ Petition Nos. 25764 AND 25771 OF 2021

20.12.2021 krk