Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kandreguala Suryanarayana, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 October, 2024
H
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
■'V
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER^/^,
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR ■J »
)
■D
\V ¥-vi
PRESENT
HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 36215 OF 2Q1fi
Between:
Kandreguala Suryanarayana, S/o. Late Sri Venkataramana aged 68
yrs. Door No; 50-49-43/4 TPT Colony Seethammadhara,
Visakhapatnam13
...Petitioner
AND
1 state of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its PrI Secretary Dept, of Mines and
Geology Secretariat, Hyderabad/Amaravathi.
2. The Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad/ Amaravathi
3. The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Govt.of Andhra Pradesh
D.No.4-47/3, Lawsons Bay Colony, Visakhapatnam-17.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings under Demand
Notice NO.526/Q/2015 dt.07-09-2016 of the Asst. Director of Mines and
Geology, Govt, of Andhra Pradesh as arbitrary, illegal and voilative of
At. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and nullify the same.
%
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 44623 OF 20161
PGtition undGr Ssction 151 CPC praying that in th6 circurnstancss
V
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
Notice
pleased to suspend all further proceedings under Demand
NO.526/Q/2015 dt.07-09-2016 of the Asst. Director of Mines and Geology,
Govt, of Andhra pending, pending disposal of the above writ petition.^^'
Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. A V S LAXMI
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY
The Court made the following order:
W IT
1
APHC010795662016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATl [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 36215/2016
Between:
...PETITIONER
Kandreguala Suryanarayana
AND
State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.AVSLAXMI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1 .GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief;
to issue any writ order or direction particularly one MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings under Demand Notice No 526/Q/2015 dt 07.09.2016 illegal and of the Asst Director of Mines and Geology_ Govt of , Andhra Pradesh as arbitrary voilative of At 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and nullify and pass
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Asst. Director Mines and Geology Visakhapatnam under the proposal No.526/Q/2015 dt.07-10-2015 2 inspected and surveyed the land. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam has accorded permission to the Asst. Director for issuance of temporary permits under Memo No.2399/QIV/TP/2015 dt.07-10-2015. The Petitioner excavated gravel upto the end of January 2016 is 58,492 Cbm and Seg. Fee payable was Rs.14,38,808/- as against which he has already paid Rs.14,55,168/- on 08-10- 2015 itself. The Petitioner received a Show Cause Notice NO.3086/V&E/TP/2016-5 dated 13-06-2016. Thereafter, the Petitioner has submitted his explanation dt. 05-07-2016. But without considering the same, the Asst. Director of Mines and Geology Visakhapatnam issued Demand Notice No.526/Q/2015 dt.08-09-2016. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.
3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 3^'^ respondent. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, as per records of the 3'"'^ respondent, the petitioner has paid Rs. 14,55,168/- vide Challan No.80982 dated 08.10.2015 towards seigniorage fee. It is submitted that the technical staff of the ADMG and officials of Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Visakhapatnam have jointly inspected the temporary permit area on 05.03.2016. Basing on the concluding report only this office issued show cause notice followed by the demand notice duly following the rules. Hence, it is not correct to contend that the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology. Visakhapatnam has issued show cause notice and demand notice without knowing factual aspects. It is further stated that the Director of Mines and Geology are entitled to inspect the any area any time. Hence, it is V k 3 not tenable to contend that the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam. It is further stated that basing on the panchanama conducted on the day of joint inspection conclusion was arrived by the technical staff of the Asst, has issued show cause notice followed by the demand notice mechanically. They are issued after due application of mind and considering all available records and documents. Therefore the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. It is stated that there is a condition that the permit holder should excavate the gravel leaving 10 mts of buffer area to the side of forest boundary and that permit holder excavated gravel from the buffer area also. It is stated that no such condition was incorporated and communicated to the petitioner. The forest boundary lies on the east of petitioner's land throughout 750 mts long. The petitioner has excavated from his land only from the buffer area and also excavated the gravel of 24428 cubic meters from his buffer in addition to the gravel excavated 33964 cubic meters showed in panchanama. Thus, the petitioner has excavated gravel 58492 cubic meters for which the petitioner has issued temporary permits. It is further stated that the contents of the panchanama have not been properly appreciated by the administration and they have misunderstood the same and pass the impugned orders. Further, the contentions raised in the counter are totally false and untenable.
5. Heard Sri Appa Rao, learned counsel representing Smt. A.V.SLakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines & Geology appearing for the respondents.
6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, submits that, there is no necessity of conducting independent enquiry before passing the impugned orders is not tenable and the report that was concluded by some of the staff of Asst, Director and the Regional Vigilance Department, behind the back of the petitioner cannot be pressed into service to the post such a heavy liability on him. He further submits that the impugned order was passed mechanically in terms of Vigilance report and without taking into consideration the contentions urged by the petitioner and also the contents of even panchanama. Therefore learned counsel submits that the impugned orders are highly vague, defective and without any justifiable reason and hence requests this Court to pass appropriate orders
7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader also while reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, contended that, the was based on Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Visakhapatnam He the joint inspection and panchanama was conducted on 05.03.2016 submits that, it is not a vague report as contended by the writ petitioner. Subsequently, the Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam has issued show cause notice and basing on the reply given by the Writ Petitioner and available evidences, documents and records, the Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam has issued demand notice. Therefore, learned 5 Assistant Government Pleader submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. As seen from the show cause notice issued by the 3 rd respondent dated 13.06.2016, wherein it is noticed that:
"As per the amendment rule 26(1) "If any person carries on quarrying operations or transportations minor minerals in contravention of these rules he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with a fine which may extend to five along with the market value of the mineral and seigniorage fee prevalent at that time or both and the lease or permit if any, already granted may, at the discretion of the officer authorized in this behalf, be liable to be terminated or cancelled."
In view of the above, it is requested to collect the following evaded seigniorage fee and penalty as worked out below;"
9. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 07.09.2016, wherein, it is noticed that:
"In your reply to show cause notice, you have stated that you have closed gravel excavations by January 2016 and it is correct that you have excavated 33,968.675 Cums of Gravel from permitted area and not correct to assume that excavated 24,523.325 Cums of gravel fi'orn other than the permitted area and requested to drop the show cause notice."
In this connection, on perusal of your explanation together with circumstantial evidences and available records, it is observed that in your explanation you have denied all the allegations duly mentioning that you have closed gravel excavations by January 2016 at permitted area. But you have not given any information of closure of quarrying at permitted area cf you to this office. Further, the temporary permit granted area is a Zeroithy land and with the consent of the Pattadars, temporary permit was issued to you. Further, in this instant T.P. file 66144 Cum of Gravel T.Ps were ' granted as against applied quantity of 2 lakh Cum of Gravel after obtaining an :...
undertaking from you accepting responsibility for any irregularity that takes place at permitted area. Hence you are held responsible for irregularities mentioned in the Show cause notice.. Further in the Panchanama it was revealed that you excavated and transported 33,968.675 cums Gravel in the T.P. area against 58,492 cum of gravel dispatch permits obtained and despatched material. Hence, it is established that as you have excavated 24,523.325 cum of balance gravel from outside the permitted area and supplied to needy firms. Hence, your plea for dropping further action on show cause notice was not considered." 6
10. In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others ^ regarding maintainability of writ petition in the context of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, the Apex Court held thus:
14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose".
15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in atleast three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged (emphasis supplied).
i ■ ■
11). The instant case falls in one of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here.
12. On hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that, the 3'"'^ respondent without considering the reasons and without applying its mind, has issued the proceedings under Demand Notice dated 7.9.2016. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and this Court is inclined to remand back the matter to the respondent for proper appreciation.
AIR 1999 SC 22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998 7
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings under Demand Notice No.526/Q/2015 dated 7.9.2016 issued by ■v the 3''^^ respondent. Further, the matter is remanded back to the 3'^^ respondent to conduct fresh enquiry by reexamining the issue after affording ample opportunity of hearing of the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy o this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
14. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
SD/- K. KASIRAO ACHAR/ //true copy// assistant registrar SECT|6^FFICER To,
1. The PrI Secretary Dept, of Mines and Geology, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad/ Amaravathi.
2. The Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad Amaravathi.
3. The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Govt.of Andhra Pradesh D.No.4-47/3, Lawsons Bay Colony, Visakhapatnam-17.
4. One CC to M/s. A V S LAXMI Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CCs to GP For Mines And Geology, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
6. Three CD Copies GSC 9 HIGH COURT DATED:29/10/2024 ORDER WP.No.36215 of 2016 ANO^ ife 2 I NOV 2C2ii ^ Current Section ^ I ALLOWING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS