M/S. Siva Shankar Minerals Pvt. ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3946 AP

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

              WRIT PETITION No.47820 of 2022


ORDER:

The petitioner company had a mining lease, for

quarrying black galaxy granite over 6.17 Hectares of land in

Sy.No.367/2 P and 422/1 P of Devara Palem Village,

Chimakurthy Mandal, erstwhile Prakasam District. This lease

was for a period of 20 years and would expire on 15.12.2025.

Originally, this lease was granted in the name of M/s.Siva

Shankar Granites Private Limited with its office at Flat

No.102, Siva Sai Sannidhi, Opp. Shirdi Saibaba Temple, Plot

No.32, Hindi Nagar, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. Thereafter, the

petitioner changed its name to M/s.Siva Shankar Mineral

Limited on 13.03.2007. This change of name was intimated to

the authorities of the Mines Department and the 3rd

respondent by proceedings No.8673/Q/2001 dated

29.07.2008 had accepted the said change. The petitioner

contends that it had changed its name again to M/s.Siva

Shankar Minerals Private Limited with the address of D.No.8-

2-293/82/A, Flat No.739-A, Road No.37, Jubilee Hills,

Hyderabad.

2. The Joint Director of Mines is said to have issued

a show cause notice dated 08.02.2018 calling upon the

petitioner to show cause why the lease should not be

determined. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, Director of Mines

and Geology, by an order dated 08.06.2018 vide proceedings bearing No.1040944/R3-2/2018 had determined the lease of

the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had committed

various breaches, which were set out in the order of

determination. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed

a revision before the 1st respondent. This revision was

dismissed by the 1st respondent vide Memo bearing

No.7498/M.I(I)/2018-4 dated 01.11.2018. Aggrieved by the

said order, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of

the present writ petition.

3. Sri Challa Gunaranjan learned counsel, appearing

for the petitioner, contends that the impugned revisional order

has refused to answer the primary contention of the petitioner

that the petitioner had not received the show cause notice said

to have been issued by the Joint Director, Mines and that the

order of the Director of Mines, determining the lease of the

petitioner, was passed without giving an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner and consequently violates the

principles of natural justice.

4. He relies upon paragraph 10(viii) of the order of

revision which states that the address of the petitioner at Flat

No.32, Hindi Nagar, Punjagutta, Hyderabad was available in

the records of the department. However, the subsequent

mailing address 8-2-276, First floor, Pavani Estate, Road No.2,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad does not appear to be available in

the records of the department. He contends that the show

cause notice produced by the official respondents shows that

the notice was addressed to the petitioner at Plot No.81, Road No.9, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. He would contend that the

notice could at best have been sent to the earlier address at

Hindi Nagar, Punjagutta or to subsequent notice claimed by

the petitioner. The show cause notice could not have been sent

to Plot No.81, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

5. The counter affidavit filed by the official

respondents does not explain as to how the address of the

petitioner was taken to be Plot No.81, Jubilee Hills.

6. The petitioner has also produced a letter dated

13.10.2011, addressed by the Zonal Joint Director of Mines

and Geology to the petitioner at its address at Pavani Estates,

First Floor, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

7. The above facts would show that the department

was aware of the change of address from Hindi Nagar to

Pavani Plaza, Road No.2, Banjara Hills. In the circumstances,

any notice served at either of these addresses may have

satisfied the requirement of service of show cause notice on

the petitioner. The service of the show cause notice to the

petitioner at Plot No.81, Road No.9, Jubilee Hills would not

amount to service of the show cause notice on the petitioner.

8. In that view of the matter, the finding of both the

Director of Mines as well as the 1st respondent-Government

that the show cause notice dated 08.02.2018 had been served

on the petitioner would have to be rejected. The inescapable

conclusion, on the facts placed before this Court, is that the

show cause notice dated 08.02.2018 was not served on the petitioner at its place of business and as such, the order of the

Director, Mines dated 08.06.2018 is in violation of principles

of natural justice.

9. The matter does not end here. The 4th respondent,

who has impleaded himself in the writ petition, appears to

have made an application for grant of a mining lease over the

very same area and had obtained necessary grant of mining

lease and had taken further steps for obtaining environment

clearance, consent for establishment and consent for

operation issued by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control

Board for the purpose of undertaking quarrying operations in

the lease area. The grant of the lease and the right to

undertake quarrying operations in this land given to the 4th

respondent is now dependent upon the result of the

determination proceedings issued to the petitioner.

10. Sri P. Roy Reddy learned counsel, appearing for

the 4th respondent would submit that the notices sent to the

petitioner at the address in Jubilee Hills amounts to service of

notice on the petitioner as the petitioner‟s office was situated

in Jubilee Hills. This contention would have to be rejected for

the reasons set out above.

11. Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel would submit

that even if there has been a violation of principles of natural

justice, the petitioner cannot have a complaint against the

order dated 08.06.2018, passed by the Director or the order

dated 01.11.2018, dismissing the revision of the petitioner, as

no prejudice was caused to the petitioner on account of non- service of notice. He relies upon the Judgments of the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court reported in Aligarh Muslim University vs.

Mansoor Ali Khan1 and State of U.P vs. Sudhir Kumar

Singh2.

12. In Mansoor Ali Khan's case an employee of

Aligarh Muslim University, sought restoration of his

employment on the ground that his removal was arbitrary and

unfair. This challenge finally reached the Hon‟ble Supreme

Court. One of the grounds raised before the Hon‟ble Supreme

Court was that there was violation of principles of natural

justice and as such, the impugned order of vacation of office

would have to be set aside. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, after

reviewing the law on this issue, had taken the view that the

principle laid down in Ridge vs. Baldwin3, that breach of

principles of natural justice, by itself, amounts to prejudice

and no other defect or prejudice needs to be proved, has been

relaxed by various Judgments in India. After referring to the

cases of S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan4, K.L.Tripathi vs. State

Bank of India5, Rajendra Singh vs. State of M.P.6 and

M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India7., the Hon‟ble Supreme Court

had held that mere breach of principles of natural justice is

not sufficient unless prejudice caused on account of such

breach is also demonstrated before the Court. Subsequently, a

three Judge Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case

(2007) 7 SCC 529 (paras 21 to 25)

2020 SCC Online SC 847 (paras 38 & 39)

1964 AC 40 : (1963) 2 AII ER 66 (HL)

(1980) 4 SCC 379

(1996) 3 SCC 364

(1996) 5 SCC 460

(1999) 6 SCC 237 of State of U.P vs. Sudheer Kumar Singh after considering

the law on this issue had held as follows:

39. An analysis of the aforesaid judgments thus reveals:

(1) Natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the judiciary to reach out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The breach of the audi alteram partem rule cannot by itself, without more, lead to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused.

(2) where procedural and/or substantive provisions of law embody the principles of natural justice, their infraction per se does not lead to invalidity of the orders passed. Here again, prejudice must be caused to the litigant, except in the case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest, but also in public interest.

(3) No prejudice is caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice where such person does not dispute the case against him or it. This can happen by reason of estoppel, acquiescence, waiver and by way of non-challenge or non-denial or admission of facts, in cases in which the Court finds on facts that no real prejudice can therefore be said to have been caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice.

(4) In cases where facts can be stated to be admitted or indisputable, and only one conclusion is possible, the Court does not pass futile orders of setting aside or remand when there is, in fact, no prejudice caused. This conclusion must be drawn by the Court on an appraisal of the facts of a case, and not by the authority who denies natural justice to a person.

(5) The "prejudice" exception must be more than a mere apprehension or even a reasonable suspicion of a litigant. It should exist as a matter of fact, or be based upon a definite inference of likelihood of prejudice flowing from the non-observance of natural justice.

13. Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel relying upon the

above Judgments, would submit that on the admitted facts,

the petitioner had not undertaken any mining activities from

the year 2005 onwards till the lease was terminated in 2018.

He would submit that this fact is not disputed by the

petitioner even in the grounds of revision filed by petitioner

and recorded in the revisional order. In the circumstances, Sri

Roy Reddy, learned counsel contends that the issuance of a

show cause notice is a "superfluous formality" as the

petitioner does not have any explanation as to why no

quarrying operations have been carried out for 13 years after

the grant of the lease and as such, the finding of the original

authority of the revisional authority that the State had been

losing revenue on account of the petitioner blocking the

exploitation of the minor mineral available in the lease area.

14. The principle of "superfluous formality" as laid

down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court is binding on this Court.

The question that would remain is whether the non service of

a show cause notice to the petitioner would fall within the

ambit of this principle.

15. The grounds on which the Director had

determined the lease of the petitioner are as follows:

1) The lessee has kept the quarry idle since grant

and violated Rule 12(5)(h)(vii)(b) of A.P.M.M.C.

Rules, 1966.

2) The lessee has not erected the boundary pillars

around the leased area which is a violation of covenant 8(13) of lease deed read with Rule

12(5)(h)(v) of A.P.M.M.C. Rules, 1966.

3) The lessee has not maintained production,

dispatch registers at Quarry site and violated

covenant 8(7) of lease deed.

4) The lessee has not submitted Approved Mining

Plan which is violation of Rule 17(1) of Granite

Conservation and Development Rules, 1999.

5) The lessee has not having EC/CFC/CFO as

required under S.O.141(E), dated 15.01.2016 and

S.O.226(e) of MOEF & CC, Government of India.

6) The lessee has not developed benches in

violation of Rule 21(1) of Granite Conservation

and Development Rules, 1999.

7) The lessee has not submitted quarterly returns

in Form „f‟ and annual returns which is a

violation of covenant 8(7) of lease deed read with

rule 28(3) of APMMC Rules, 1966 and Rule 41 of

Granite Conservation and Development Rules,

1999.

8) The lessee has not obtained any dispatch

permits since grant.

16. The petitioner while assailing this order, by way

of revision, did not deny the finding of the Director, that the

Petitioner had not undertaken any mining operations in the

lease area from the inception of the lease till the order of

determination. Further, the contention of the petitioner, in the revision, was that the petitioner was willing to rectify all the

defects pointed out in the order of determination. It is evident

that, the Petitioner did not dispute the findings in the

determination order nor does the Petitioner have any

grounds/objections which required further consideration. In

the circumstances, the present case would fall within the

ambit of a superfluous formality.

17. The petitioner had also contended that the show

cause notice, for determination of the lease, was issued by the

Joint Director while the order of determination was passed by

the Director. The petitioner submits that the Director could

not have passed the order on the basis of a show cause notice

said to have been issued by the Joint Director. This contention

would be available to the petitioner in the event of the Director

passing an order after objections, in writing and by way of

personal hearing, were considered by the Joint Director. As no

objections were filed by the petitioner, on account of non

receipt of the show cause notice, the question of considering

the objections never arose. In the circumstances, this issue

would not in any manner invalidate the order of the Director.

18. For all the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition

would have to fail and is accordingly dismissed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 13-07-2022 RJS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.47820 of 2022

Date : 13.07.2022

RJS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

*** W.P.No.47820 of 2018 Between:

M/s.Siva Shankar Minerals Pvt.Ltd., Represented by it's Authorized person Sri Chennareddy Seshareddy(Formerly known as M/s.Siva Shankar Granites Private Limited) D.No.8-2-293/82/a, Plot No.739-A, Road No.37, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana.

... Petitioner

And

$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Vijayawada.

2. Director of Mines and Geology, Anjani Towers, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.

3. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole District, Andhra Pradesh.

4. M/s.Parvathi Mines, Represented by its Managing Partner V.U.S.V Bhushan Kumar, Plot No.183, Road No.11, Prashasan Nagar, Shaikpeta, Hyderabad.

... Respondents

Date of Judgment pronounced on : 13-07-2022

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No May be allowed to see the judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No

to Law Reporters/Journals:

3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No Of the Judgment?

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

+ W.P.No.47820 of 2018

% Dated: 13-07-2022

M/s.Siva Shankar Minerals Pvt.Ltd., Represented by it's Authorized person Sri Chennareddy Seshareddy(Formerly known as M/s.Siva Shankar Granites Private Limited) D.No.8-2-293/82/a, Plot No.739-A, Road No.37, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana.

... Petitioner And

$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Vijayawada.

2. Director of Mines and Geology, Anjani Towers, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.

3. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole District, Andhra Pradesh.

4. M/s.Parvathi Mines, Represented by its Managing Partner V.U.S.V Bhushan Kumar, Plot No.183, Road No.11, Prashasan Nagar, Shaikpeta, Hyderabad.

... Respondents

! Counsel for petitioner : Challa Gunaranjan

^Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 : G.P. for Mines

^Counsel for Respondent No.4 : P.Roy Reddy

<GIST :

>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred:

(2007) 7 SCC 529 (paras 21 to 25)

2. 2020 SCC Online SC 847 (paras 38 & 39)

3. 1964 AC 40 : (1963) 2 AII ER 66 (HL)

4. (1980) 4 SCC 379

5. (1996) 3 SCC 364

6. (1996) 5 SCC 460

7. (1999) 6 SCC 237