Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S Sri Venkatasai Granites, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 15 February, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL Nos.141, 142, 143 and 148 of 2024
M/s. Sri Venkatasai Granites,
Survey No.589, 290/3, Basvapalli Village,
Naraharipeta Post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District,
Rep. by its Managing Partner,
P. Amruthavalli, W/o.P. Maheswara Rao,
Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Door No.19-262/1A, Red Cross Street,
Mittor, Chittoor, Chittoor District.
... Appellant in all the
writ appeals
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Industries and Commerce (Mines) Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravati, Guntur District and two others.
...Respondents in all
the writ appeals
Mr. Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, Counsel for the appellant.
Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, Counsel for respondent
Nos.1 to 3.
DATE : 15.02.2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
HCJ & RRR, J
2 WA_Nos_141_2024 & batch
PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ:
Service of notices waived by learned Government Pleader for
Mines and Geology appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in Writ
Appeal Nos.141, 142, 143 and 148 of 2024.
2. Learned counsel for the parties agree to the final disposal of
the present writ appeals at the admission stage itself.
3. In all the four aforementioned writ appeals, since common
questions of law and fact arise, we propose to deal with them by way
of a common judgment and order. Facts in W.A.No.141 of 2024 are
being referred to, for the sake of convenience.
4. The present writ appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent
has been preferred against the judgment and order dated
12.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.1111 of 2024.
5. The petitioner/appellant herein is the beneficiary of a quarry
lease executed in its favour by the Assistant Director of Mines and
Geology, Chittoor dated 25.03.2021. The lease was to remain in
force till 31.08.2030.
HCJ & RRR, J
3 WA_Nos_141_2024 & batch
6. It appears that the Government issued a memo dated
20.04.2023, forwarding a report of GA (V&E) Department to the
Director of Mines and Geology, as per the said report the quarry
lease held by the petitioner was jointly inspected by the officials of
the Vigilance and Enforcement Department along with officials of
Mines and Geology department from 06.08.2022 to 08.08.2022 in
which certain deviations and violations under the Andhra Pradesh
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short "APMMC Rules,
1966") and Granite Conservation And Development Rules, 1999
(for short "GCDR, 1999") were reported. A show cause notice dated
30.06.2023 was served upon the petitioner requiring it to show
cause as to why action be not taken against it in accordance with
Rule 12 (5) (h)(iii) of the APMMC Rules on account of the
violations committed by it. The petitioner stood informed that
failure to submit a reply would result in necessary action under the
said rules based on the material available on record.
7. A reply dated 17.07.2023 was then furnished by the
petitioner to the respondents wherein it was highlighted that the
show cause notice was served upon him without the material relied
upon in the same, without which it was stated that no effective
representation/reply could be submitted in regard to the allegations
HCJ & RRR, J
4 WA_Nos_141_2024 & batch
made therein. Even then some explanation was rendered to the said
show cause notice. Finally, a demand notice dated 23.08.2023 was
issued by the District Mines and Geology Officer, Chittoor requiring
the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,29,11,21,580/-.
8. The petitioner in those circumstances finally challenged the
notice of demand by filing a writ petition which came to be disposed
of, by relegating the petitioner to the alternate remedy, considering
the fact that the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice had
not specifically mentioned the list of documents which were
required to be served upon the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that failure
on the part of the official respondents to furnish to the petitioner
the report of GA (V&E) Department, dated 13.02.2023 based upon
which the show cause notice was served upon the
petitioner/appellant herein had resulted in grave prejudice to the
appellant inasmuch as in the absence of such material, the
appellant was precluded from making an effective representation.
10. Reliance was placed upon the Apex Court judgment rendered
in the case of Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited vs.
HCJ & RRR, J
5 WA_Nos_141_2024 & batch
Government of Andhra Pradesh1 and in particular paragraph 31
wherein the Apex Court held:
"31. The basic principles of natural justice seem to have been
disregarded by the State Government while revising the order. It
acted on materials which were not supplied to the appellants.
Additionally, the High Court for the first time made reference to the
report/inspection notes which were not even referred to by the
State Government while exercising revisional power."
11. It is a fundamental principle of law that before any action is
taken against a person, he is to be given a reasonable opportunity of
being heard. A reasonable opportunity of being heard would
necessarily imply serving upon such a person the requisite material
based upon which the action is proposed to be taken as reflected in
the show cause notice. Failure to provide such material based upon
which action is proposed to be taken against a person would indeed
prevent such a person from submitting a comprehensive reply and
the reply so furnished in the absence of such a material would only
be rendered illusory.
12. Be that as it may, we allow the present writ appeal and set
aside the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge. A
fresh notice may be issued by the official respondents to the
1 (2008) 16 SCC 276
HCJ & RRR, J
6 WA_Nos_141_2024 & batch
appellant herein along with the copy of the GA (V&E) Department
report, dated 13.02.2023, as also any other material which can be
used by the official respondents while contemplating action against
the appellant in terms of the Rule 12 (5) (h)(iii) of the APMMC
Rules, 1966. No order as to costs.
13. Consequently, W.A.Nos.142, 143, and 148 of 2024, shall
stand allowed and the judgments and orders impugned therein,
shall stand set aside.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
SSN
HCJ & RRR, J
7 WA_Nos_141_2024 & batch
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL Nos.141, 142, 143 and 148 of 2024
DATE : 15.02.2024
SSN
