Telangana High Court
M/S. Vinayaka Stone Crusher vs The State Of Telangana on 24 September, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION Nos.12748, 16550, 23068, 25183, 25651, 26117,
26123, 26394, 27265, 27298, 33461 & 34020 OF 2024 ALONG WITH
W.P. Nos.15607 AND 27699 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Dr. Donthireddy Venkat Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Gouridevi Krishnaiah, Mr. Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel representing Mr. A. Santhosh Kumar, Mr. Ravi Kondaveeti, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Bharat Reddy Bommineni, Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, Mr. Pannala Srinivas, learned counsel for the respective petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. Lis involved in all these matters except W.P. Nos.15607 and 27699 of 2024 is one and the same. Therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order. W.P. No.12748 of 2024 is the leading case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed in W.P. No.12748 of 2024.
3. All these writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners to declare the action of respondent No.4 - Assistant Director of Mines and 2 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch Geology (hereinafter ADM&G) in issuing demand notices as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same on the following grounds:
i. Respondent No.4 has issued show-cause notices stating that the petitioners excavated and transported gravel unauthorizedly which is in violation of Rule - 26 (2) of the Telangana State Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short 'TSMMC Rules, 1966') and accordingly directed them to show cause within fifteen (15) days as to why action should not be taken for the respective quantities of gravel excavated and transported unauthorizedly, or else necessary action would be taken as per the Rules in force.
ii. On receipt of the said show-cause notices, some of the petitioners submitted their replies stating that during inspection, there was no excavation and transportation of gravel was noticed. No men and machinery were found at the site inspection. No notice was served upon the petitioners. Inspection was not carried out in the presence of any representative of the petitioner. The alleged inspection and panchanama conducted behind their back, is contrary to 3 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch Circular Memo No.40454/R3-1/2011, dated 28.02.2012. It is in violation of principles of natural justice. iii. Without considering the said replies/explanations, respondent No.4 had issued demand notices directing the petitioners to pay amounts mentioned therein for illegal excavation and transportation of gravel from the lands mentioned therein. Therefore, issuance of impugned demand notices is arbitrary, illegal, in violation of principles of natural justice and procedure laid down under TSMMC Rules, 1966 and also the principle laid down by this Court and Apex Court. Therefore, the same are liable to be set aside.
iv. Whereas, W.P. Nos.15607 and 27699 of 2024 are filed to declare the action of Assistant Director in issuing show-cause notices and the consequential demand notices as illegal more or less with the aforesaid contentions. The only difference is that they have challenged the show cause notices also. Whereas, in the other writ petitions the challenge is only to the demand notices and there is no challenge to the show cause notices. 4
KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch
4. The respondents filed counter denying the contentions of the petitioners on the following grounds:
i. The demand notice issued by respondent No.4 is within the ambit of Rules;
ii. Respondent No.4 is having jurisdiction and authority to issue demand notice under TMMC Rules, 1966;
iii. On consideration of explanations submitted by some of the petitioners and non-submission of explanation by some of the petitioners despite receipt of show cause notices, 4th respondent - Assistant Director has issued demand notices; iv. The office of respondent No.4 inspected and surveyed the illegal quarrying of gravel. Local enquiry and panchanama revealed that the petitioners conducted illegal quarrying. v. The petitioners have alternative remedies of preferring appeal before the Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad under Rule - 35 of TSMMC Rules, 1966 and revision petitions before the Government under Rule - 35A of the said Rules against the demand notices. Without availing the said remedies, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions. 5
KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch vi. There is no violation of principles of natural justice and procedure laid down under the Rules, in issuing show-cause notices/demand notices as alleged by the petitioners.
vii. In the Federal Structure of India, the State Governments are the owners of minerals located within their respective boundaries. As per entry at Sl.No.23 of List - II (State List) to the Constitution of India, 'Regulation of mines and mineral development subject to the provisions of List - I with respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union'. As per entry at Sl.No.54 of List - I (Central List), 'regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest'.
ix) As per entry at Sl.No.54 of List - I, the Central Government has framed Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'MMDR Act and under Sub-Section (1-A) (g) of Section - 15 of the Act confers powers to the State Government to fix and collect rent, royalty, fee, dead rent, fines or other charges in respect of minor minerals and the time within which and the manner in which these shall be payable. Based on Section - 15 of 6 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch the MMDR Act, all the State Governments have framed their own Rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals including the composite State of Andhra Pradesh in the name of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1966. After bifurcation of the State, the State of Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.55, Industries and Commerce (Mines.I) Department, dated 26.08.2015, adopted the A.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1966, which shall deem to have come into force w.e.f. 02.06.2024.
x) Rule - 26 of the Rules, contemplates penalty for unauthorized quarrying.
xi) State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.643 of Industries & Commerce (M.IV) Department, dated 27.11.1980 authorized certain Officers which includes ADM & G, to recover minerals unlawfully raised under Rules - 26 (2) of TSMMC Rules, 1966. The Government instructions empower the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, to collect the penalty from the violators of the Rules. The same was confirmed by this Court in L. Venkateshwar Rao v. M/s. Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd.1 1 . 1993 (3) ALT 199 (F.B.) 7 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch holding that Rule - 26 (3) (ii) is not ultra vires and the powers of the State Government is not arbitrary or unreasonable.
5. FINDING AND ANALYSIS OF THE COURT In the light of the aforesaid rival submissions, the following points arose for consideration of this Court: -
i) Whether ADM&G have jurisdiction to issue demand notices invoking his power under Rule 26 of the TSMMC Rules, 1966, on the allegation of unauthorized excavation and transportation of gravel?
ii) Whether ADM&G followed the procedure laid down under the said Rules and principles of natural justice in issuing impugned demand notices?
Points:-
6. The statutory framework governing the regulation of minor minerals stems from Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 ( for short, 'MMDR Act'), which empowers the State Governments to frame rules for regulating minor minerals, including the levy of rent, royalty, seigniorage fee, and penalties. Accordingly, the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, adopted by Telangana under G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 26.08.2015, form the statutory basis of the present demand notices. 8
KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch
7. Rule 26 of the TSMMC Rules, 1966 provides that unauthorized excavation or transportation of minerals attracts a penalty up to ten times the normal seigniorage fee, in addition to recovery of the fee itself. This Rule is reinforced by G.O.Ms.No.643, dated 27.11.1980, which empowers the ADM&G to levy such penalties and recover amounts. Thus, the ADM&G is vested with jurisdictional authority to issue such demand notices.
8. Rule 26 of the TSMMC Rules 1966 is relevant and the same is extracted below:-
Rule 26- Penalty for unauthorized quarrying.
(1) If any person carries on quarrying operations or transports minor minerals in contravention of these rules, he shall be liable to pay as penalty, such enhanced seigniorage fee together with assessments as may be imposed by an Officer nominated by the Director of Mines and Geology .(2)Whenever any person raises or transports minor minerals without any lawful authority, such minerals may be seized by an Officer nominated by the Director of Mines and Geology in this behalf in addition to the imposition of the penalty under sub-rule (1) :Provided that in no case, the penalty shall exceed [ten times] the normal seigniorage fee and the lease or permit already granted may, at the discretion of the Deputy Director, be liable to be terminated or cancelled (3) (i) For the purpose of ascertaining the position of payment of Mineral Revenue due to the Government or for any other purpose under these rules, the person authorized under sub-rule (2) may
(a)enter and inspect any premises;9
KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch
(b)survey and take measurements;
(c)weigh, measure or take measurements of stocks of minerals;
(d)examine any document, book, register or record in the possession or power of any person having the control of, or connected with any mineral including the processed mineral and place marks of identification thereon and take extracts from, or make copies of such document, book, register or record; and
(e)order the production of any such document, book, register, record as is referred in Clause (d).
(ii)If no documentary proof is produced in token of having paid the mineral revenue due to the Government by any person who used or consumed or in possession of any mineral including the processed mineral, he shall notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) be liable to pay [five times] of the normal seigniorage fee as penalty in addition to normal seigniorage fee leviable under the rules. [Explanation. - It shall be competent to the officer nominated by the Director of Mines and Geology to determine the question whether quarrying operation or transportation of minerals are carried or not within the meaning of this rule. The applicant/applicant company convicted for an offence relating to unauthorized mining/quarrying of minor minerals shall be debarred/disqualified for getting new Quarry Lease or renewal of the existing Quarry Lease for a period of ten (10) years.] (5) whoever contravenes the provisions under sub-rule (5) of Rule 10, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology or any Officer nominated in this behalf by the Director of Mines and Geology shall raise a demand as specified in the Schedule III with five times penalty. In the event of default of payment of penalty within a period of one month an officer not below the rank of Assistant Director of Mines and Geology or any officer authorized by the Director of Mines and Geology shall be competent to seize the unit from its operation by duly recording panchanama. On such seizure it is the responsibility of the industry concerned to safeguard its machinery by keeping a watch and ward and department will 10 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch not take any responsibility for the machinery and any other equipment present in industry or damage to the civil structures.
9. The constitutionality and vires of such provisions and delegations were upheld in L. Venkateswara Rao (supra), where the Full Bench held that Rule 26(3)(ii) of TSMMC Rules, 1966, is not ultra vires the MMDR Act. The delegation of adjudicatory and recovery powers to the ADM&G is neither arbitrary nor illegal. It was further held that statutory empowerment under Rules framed pursuant to Section 15(1) of the MMDR Act, includes the authority to recover penalties for unlawful extraction of minor minerals.
9-i. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted below: -
66. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that Rule 26 (3) (ii) of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, is not ultra vires the powers of the State Government and is not arbitrary or unreasonable. We record the submission made by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State Government that the rule is intended to be used only against bulk users or consumers and that it is not intended to be used against petty or small consumers. The contractors are bound by the terms of the agreements entered into by them with the respondent company and in case they do not produce documentary proof in token of payment of seigniorage fee in respect of the minerals used by them in the execution of civil works entrusted to them by the respondent company, the respondent company is entitled to recover the seigniorage fee in respect of the minor minerals consumed by it, from the bills payable to the contractors and pay it to the State Government. In view of the foregoing discussion, the decision of the Division Bench dated February 16, 1988 in Writ Petition No. 5939 of 1987 and batch is over-ruled. 11
KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch
10. The petitioners placed reliance on the principle laid down by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M/s GSR Stone Crusher vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2, wherein it was held that penal consequences under Rule 26 of the A.P.MMC Rules must be enforced through prosecution in a criminal court of competent jurisdiction. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the State has already preferred intra Court appeals challenging the said common judgment. The same are pending. There are no interim orders.
11. However, in M/s Murali Krishna Minerals vs The State of Telangana3, this Court, after recalling an earlier contrary view held that the ADM&G, acting under statutory rules framed under Section 15 of the MMDR Act, is empowered to levy penalties, and that the contention that such power rests exclusively with the courts is untenable in view of the statutory framework.
11-i. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted below: -
"15.Since the petitioner have placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to support their contention and the said decision having been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in its order dt.25.02.2025 in W.P.No.25814 of 2023, this Court is of the view that the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh cannot advance the case of the petitioner, more so, when it is not shown to this Court as to the order of this Court not considering the provisions in correct perspective." 2
W.P. No. 8390 of 2018 and batch, dated 30.09.2022 3 W.P. No. 93 of 2025 12 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch
12. In M/s Kisan Stone Crusher vs. the State of Telangana 4 where, relying on the scheme of Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, this Court held that the State has the power to recover value, rent, royalty, or penalty in cases of unlawful mining, and that such recovery can be enforced through designated authorities under the Rules. The contention that enforcement must only be through a criminal prosecution was categorically rejected.
12-i. Relevant paragraph in the said judgment is extracted below: -
21. From the aforesaid enunciation, it is clear that the State is having power to levy penalty under Rule 26 of the Telangana State Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and when the power is sourced through a statute itself, the contention of petitioner that penalty shall be levied only under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1957 does not stand the judicial scrutiny, as such, the levy of penalty by respondents is in accordance with law. Consequently, challenge to Revision order dated 30.08.2022 and consequential notice dated 05.09.2022 issued by the 4th respondent by petitioner fails for the reasons stated supra. Resultantly, Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed as bereft of merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.
13. However, during the course of hearing it is brought to the notice of this court the writ petitioner in the said case has already preferred an Intra court appeal WA No. 858 of 2025 and it is pending. There is no Interim order.
4 W.P. No. 25814 of 2023 13
KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch
14. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I respectively agree with the view taken by this Court in Kishan Stone Crusher and Murali Krishna Minerals (supra). Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the ADM&G has power to initiate proceedings under Rule 26 of TSMMC Rules, 1966, impose penalties. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the batch of writ petitions that the ADM&G has no power/jurisdiction to issue impugned demand notices is untenable. Accordingly the Point No.1 is answered.
15. With regard to the second point i.e. the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, has issued impugned demand notices in violation of principles of natural justice, without serving notices on the petitioners, copies of Inspection/ETS/Technical Staff Report, the said survey was conducted behind the back of the petitioners and that the Assistant Director has not considered the reply submitted by some of the petitioners properly, it is relevant to note that the Supreme Court in State of Meghalaya vs. All Dimasa Students Union5, held that imposition of financial liability must be preceded by an objective determination and observance of fair hearing.
15-i. Relevant paragraphs in the said judgment are extracted below: -
5
(2019) 8 SCC 177 14 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch
96. The 1957 Act has been enacted in reference to Schedule VII List I Entry 54 to the following effect:
"54. Regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest."
97. At this juncture, we may notice Schedule VII List II Entry 23, which is to the following effect:
"23. Regulation of mines and mineral development subject to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union."
98. The legislative power under Entry 23 is subject to the provision of List I with respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union. When the Union has declared to have taken under its control the regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in the Act, the legislative power of the State to the above extent is denuded. The learned counsel for the appellant has also very fairly not disputed the position in law.
16. In Naresh Chandra Agarwala v. Institute of Chartered Accountants 6, the Apex Court upheld Rule 9 (3) (b) of the Chartered Accountants Rules, 2007, rejecting the argument that it exceeded the parent Act's scope. The Court applied the "generality vs. enumeration"
principle, holding that while Section 21A (4) of the Chartered Accountants Act, only mentioned "further investigation," the broader rule-making power under Section 29A (1) of the said Act, allowed the Board of Discipline to refer cases directly to the Disciplinary Committee. The ruling emphasized that delegated legislation must align with the 6 2024 SCC OnLine SC 114 15 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch Act's purpose, but need not be strictly confined to its enumerated examples. Thus, the rule was deemed valid as it furthered the Act's objective of ensuring professional accountability.
16-i. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted below
34. In Afzal Ullah v. The State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1963 SCC OnLine SC 76, it was argued that the impugned bye-laws were invalid, because they were outside the authority conferred on the delegate to make bye-laws by Section 298(2) of the Act, and it was also contended that the bye-laws were invalid for the additional reason that they were inconsistent with Section 241 of the Act. Rejecting the said contentions, this Court observed as follows:
"Even if the said clauses did not justify the impugned byelaw,there can be little doubt that the said bye-laws would be justified by the general power conferred on the Boards by s. 298(1). It is well settled that the specific provisions such as are contained in the several clauses of s. 298(2) are merely illustrative and they cannot be read as restrictive of the generality of powers prescribed by s. 298(1) vide Emperor v. Sibnath Banerji MANU/PR/0024/1945. If the powers specified by s. 298(1) are very wide and they take in within their scope bye-laws like the ones with which we are concerned in the present appeal, it cannot be said that the powers enumerated under s. 298(2) control the general words used by s. 298(1). These latter clauses merely illustrate and do not exhaust all the powers conferred on the Board, so that any cases not falling within the powers specified by section 298(2) may well be protected by s. 298(1), provided, of course, the impugned bye-laws can be justified by reference to the requirements of s.298(1). There can be no doubt that the impugned bye-laws in regard to the markets framed by respondent No. 2 are for thefurtherance of municipal administration under the Act, and so, would attract the provisions of s. 298(1). Therefore, we are satisfied that the High Court was right conclusion that the impugned by laws are valid 16 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch
35. From reference to the precedents discussed above and taking the following legal principles that may be relevant in adjudicating cases where subordinate legislation is challenged on the ground of being 'Ultra vires' the parent Act: (a) The doctrine of ultra vires envisages that a Rule making body must function within the purview of the Rule making authority, conferred on it by the parent Act. As the body making Rules or Regulations has no inherent power of its own to make rules, but derives such power only from the statute, it must necessarily function within the purview of the statute. Delegated legislation should not travel beyond the purview of the parent Act. (b) Ultra vires may arise in several ways; there may be simple excess of power over what is conferred by the parent Act; delegated legislation may be inconsistent with the provisions of the parent Act; there may be non-compliance with the procedural requirement as laid down in the parent Act. It is the function of the courts to keep all authorities within the confines of the law by supplying the doctrine of ultra vires. (c) If a rule is challenged as being ultra vires, on the ground that it exceeds the power conferred by the parent Act, the Court must, firstly, determine and consider the source of power which is relatable to the rule. Secondly, it must determine the meaning of the subordinate legislation itself and finally, it must decide whether the subordinate legislation is consistent with and within the scope of the power delegated. (d) Delegated rule- making power in statutes generally follows a standardized pattern. A broad section grants authority with phrases like 'to carry out the provisions' or 'to carry out the purposes.' Another sub-section specifies areas for delegation, often using language like 'without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power.' In determining if the impugned rule is intra vires/ultra vires the scope of delegated power, Courts have applied the 'generality versus enumeration' principle.
(e) The "generality versus enumeration" principle lays down that, where a statute confers particular powers without prejudice to the generality of a general power already conferred, the particular powers are only illustrative of the general power, and do not in any way restricts the general power. In that sense, even if the impugned rule does not fall within the enumerated heads, that by itself will not determine if the rule is ultra vires/intra vires. It must be further examined if the impugned rule can be upheld by 17 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch
17. In M/s. A.P. Electrical Equipment v. Tahsildar7, the Apex Court emphasized that penal consequences, especially financial liabilities, must be adjudicated with procedural fairness, and Court expressed strong disapproval of the State's reliance on "bogus paper panchanamas" to claim possession, suggesting an attempt to manipulate the legal process.
17-i. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted below:-
45. It was pointed out on behalf of the appellant herein that not only the factory is still running on the subject-land but there are multi-storeyed residential buildings also constructed therein. It was also pointed out that entire land is encompassed by a boundary wall and the gate is manned by security guard. It was also brought to our notice that the so called panchnama does not contain any site map or distinctive boundaries with special divisions whatsoever. The entire extent of 1,63679 sq.mtrs. is bound by one compound wall. It seems that the Division Bench in its impugned judgment has observed that there is no requirement under the statute for obtaining the signature of the landowner in the panchnama or filing of the affidavits by the panchas. When State Authorities try to take law in their own hands by hook or crook and rely on bogus paper panchnamas for the purpose of asserting that actual physical possession was taken over before the date of the repeal, then it is imperative that the signature of the landowner must be obtained in the panchnama so as to attach sanctity and authenticity to such exercise of taking over of actual possession. Affidavits of the panchas would also attach great sanctity to the same.
46. We have no hesitation in saying that the State has not placed true and correct facts in all respect. Both of us (J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, J.J.) have worked as judges in our respective High Courts. We had the occasion to decide 7 2025 INSC 274 18 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch many matters exactly of the present type. Our experience so far has been that out of ten matters in nine matters it was apparent that the cases were one of paper possession. The present case is also one of paper possession. The learned Single Judge was constrained to observe that having regard to the materials on record few documents were found to be ante dated coupled with fabrication of evidence to some extent.
18. In Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise8, the Apex Court held that Rules or Regulations that exceed the authority granted by the parent statute are inherently unenforceable. Courts have to hold such rules void when their validity is challenged, even if no formal declaration of invalidity is sought.
19. The Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Thomas Joseph9, underscores the principle that delegated legislation must align with the parent statute's scope and intent. Further A rule- making body must function within the authority granted by the parent Act. It cannot exceed its delegated powers.
20. However, the argument that the ADM&G lacks jurisdiction per se to initiate such proceedings is untenable. The recent decision in Sri P. Pramod Kumar vs The State of Telangana 10 also affirms that Assistant Directors are statutorily empowered to issue demand notices under Rule 26(2), and Court ruled that no statutory power under the Act 8 (2016) 3 SCC 643 9 2023 11 SCC 700 10 W.P. No. 40440 of 2022 19 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch or Rules allows the authority to review its own finalized orders and issue a contradictory demand notice. Thus, the fresh demand was without jurisdiction.
20-i. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted below:-
8.....Basing on the satellite survey and findings, a fresh demand notice was issued to petitioner based on sophisticated survey. This demand notice is virtually amounting to review of previous conclusions of facts arrived at by the third respondent. Once the findings arrived at in the previous surveys and panchnama with regard to the persons responsible for the illegal excavation which culminated to issuance of demand notice have attained finality, allowed re-
survey and issued fresh determination proceedings amounts to review of previous proceedings, which is impermissible. Neither the Act or the Rules dealing with minor mineral empowers the authority to review his own order and come to a different conclusion. The demand notice in the present case is result of lack of jurisdiction. This ground is sufficient to set aside the impugned demand notice.
13. As seen from the above judgments, bar of writ petition when there is an efficacious alternative remedy exists, is a self-imposed bar and when there are no disputed questions of fact and when writ petition was taken up and pleadings were exchanged, it cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of existence of alternative and efficacious remedy. In the present case, entire case is proceeded on the undisputed fact existed from the correspondences and material made out from the joint inspection of the authorities themselves. They clearly demonstrate that initial conclusions arrived at by the authorities were that illegal excavations were done by A.Jayram Reddy and other lease-holders and in fact, demand notice was also issued to A.Jayram Reddy, and ignoring the said demand notice, they sought to re-assess the liability in the form of exercise of review power in the guise of Regional Vigilance Officers' directions for re-survey, which is nothing but reviewing the orders made by the 3rd respondent fixing illegal excavation on A.Jayram Reddy and recalling the demand notice issued on him. Such subsequent satellite survey and fixing liability on petitioner is without jurisdiction. There is no disputed questions of fact involved 20 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch to resolve the issue in the writ petition. Therefore, existence of alternative remedy does not create a bar to maintain the writ petition. In the said background, the contention raised with regard to non-maintainability of writ petition is rejected.
21. In Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Executive Engineer11, erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, quashed the demand notices where no valid lease existed and the material was not quarried for commercial use, reiterating that seigniorage fee or penalties must be backed by lawful lease/quarry operations and proper adjudication.
22. In Karnataka Rare Earth v. Senior Geologist, Department of Mines & Geology 12, the Apex Court rendered the said judgment in the context of recovery of dues through civil proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. The Supreme Court, held that mere issuance of a demand notice does not crystallize a liability unless there is adjudication or consent.
23. However, in the present case, the demand notices are not in the nature of civil recovery proceedings, but are issued in exercise of statutory powers under Rule 26(2) of the TSMMC Rules, 1966, which expressly empowers the ADM&G to determine unauthorized excavation and impose penalties. The adjudicatory scheme under the TSMMC Rules, being a product of delegated legislation framed under Section 15 11 2013 SCC OnLine AP 1111 12 (2004) 2 SCC 783 21 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch of the MMDR Act, 1957, carries distinct statutory force and cannot be equated with the civil recovery mechanisms discussed in Karnataka Rare Earth (supra). Hence, the ratio of that judgment has no application to the facts of the present case in view of statutory framework.
24. In K. Seshagiri Rao & Co. vs. State of A.P. 13, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, held that ADM&G's power to issue demand notices must be supported by proper enquiry and opportunity. A mere assumption of illegal quarrying, without confronting the person with evidence, is insufficient.
24-i. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted below:-
8. As per the said Circular Memo No.40454/R3-1/2011, Dated 28.02.2012, issued by the Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam, NTR District, all the Assistant Directors of Mines & Geology(Regular and Vigilance) and Deputy Directors of Mines & Geology in the State were informed that while booking the cases on Mining/Quarry without a lease or permit, care should be taken by adopting certain guidelines such as intimation to the complainant to be present at the time of enquiry and also an intimation to the lease holders who are purported to be having involved in the illegal activity to be present at the time of enquiry.
9. But, in the case on hand, it is an admitted fact that no such procedure was contemplated by the respondents before issuance of the show cause notice dated 02.08.2024 and however, the said show cause notice was based on a complaint made by one Sri Somireddi Chandra Mohan Reddy, 13 29394/2024 22 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch Ex.Minister of Andhra Pradesh and Present Hon'ble MLA of Survepalli Assembly Constituency and as well as the Joint Inspection report which was conducted on 19.04.2024 and 20.04.2024, without any notice to the petitioner. However, it can also be observed that in spite of the requests made by the petitioner on 29.08.2024, 09.09.2024 and 11.11.2024, neither the copy of the Joint Inspection Report was served on the petitioner so as to submit an explanation to the said impugned show cause notice nor have conducted any fresh inspection as per the guidelines prescribed in Circular Memo No.40454/R3-12011, Dated 28.02.2012, issued by the Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam, NTR District, as requested by the petitioner.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court feels it appropriate to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned show cause notice No.2424/M/2002 dated 02.08.2024, issued by the respondent No.4 and further matter is remanded back to the respondent No.4 for fresh consideration after duly giving a notice and as well as to conduct a Joint inspection in the presence of the petitioner by duly following the guidelines as prescribed under the Circular Memo No.40454/R3-1/2011, Dated 28.02.2012, issued by the Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam, NTR District. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 is at liberty to initiate further course of action.
25. In Government of Andhra Pradesh vs Media Corp Technologies India Limited 14, Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, held that the purchaser company should be permitted to produce necessary documentary proof as envisaged under Rule 26(3)(ii) of the TSMMC Rules, 1966 and directed the concerned authorities to decide matter afresh considering the documents produced, giving them a fair opportunity of hearing.
14
(2002) 2 ALD 792 23 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch
26. The sum and substance of the aforesaid judgments is that the ADM&G shall follow the procedure laid down under Rule 26 of TSMMC Rules, shall offer fair opportunity of submitting explanation including serving of show cause notice, furnishing of information, if any, sought by the parties, then consider the explanation submitted by the parties including their contentions and the documents in support of their contentions. Thereafter, determine the liability of the parties.
27. As per Rule 26 of Rules, 1966 and the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments;
a. ADM&G, shall come to a conclusion with regard to illegal excavation and transportation of minor mineral (in the present case 'gravel') either by conducting Field/ETS/Technical Staff Survey of the premises, then make a report of the same, and issue show cause notice mentioning the details of the said illegal excavation and transportation of minor mineral. b. On receipt of the same, the Companies/Firms/Proprietary concerns/Persons shall submit explanation within the time frame mentioned in the show cause notice.
24
KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch c. If they need any of the information/proceedings mentioned in the show cause notices, they have to specifically make a request to the Assistant Director, to furnish a copy of the same. d. On receipt of the said request, the Assistant Director shall furnish copy of the same to the parties with a specific direction to submit explanation within a specified timeframe. e. On receipt of the said information, parties shall submit explanation within the aforesaid time granted by the ADM&G. f. In the event of payment of mineral revenue due to the Government, the party shall specifically state the same in the explanation and submit proof of payment of the same along with the explanation.
g. Parties have to submit explanation addressing each of the allegation made against them in the show cause notices. h. On receipt of the said explanations, ADM&G shall consider the same in proper perspective including any enclosures / relevant documents that are submitted with the same and issue demand notices by specifically giving reasons for the contentions raised by the parties.
25
KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch i. The Assistant Director shall also consider the replies given by parties while imposing maximum penalty of ten times in terms of proviso to Rule 26(2) of the Rules, 1966 and he has also to assign specific reasons while imposing maximum penalty of ten times, giving reasoning is an indispensable part of principal of natural justice and he should follow the same.
28. The Supreme Court in Isolators & Isolators v. M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. 15, has categorically held that imposition of the maximum penalty without specifying the factors justifying such harsh consequence is unsustainable in law. The principle flowing there from is that while the power to penalize is vested in the authority, the proportionality of the penalty must be assessed with reference to the nature of violation, quantum of loss caused, and the conduct of the notice. Absent such recorded reasons, the levy of maximum penalty would offend the principles of natural justice and stand vitiated 28-a. Relevant paragraph is extracted below:-
39. Though, ordinarily, for such an omission of the High Court, the course would have been to remit the issue for consideration but, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served by remitting such an issue in this matter. This is for the simple reason that imposition of penalty against the appellant cannot be approved because of the want of specific show-cause notice. Moreover, no 15 2020 SCC Online SC 753 26 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch specific quantum of loss has been specified by the respondents so as to justify the imposition of maximum of penalty. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order dated 17-8-2020 is required to be set aside.
29. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, coming to the facts of the present cases on hand, there are 14 writ petitions: -
1-a. In W.P. 12748 of 2024, 4th respondent - ADM&G, had issued show cause notice dated 06.02.2024 based on a Technical Staff Inspection report dated 24.01.2024. Petitioner has submitted detailed reply on 23.02.2024 contending that name of the Managing Director of the company is wrongly mentioned in the show cause notice, Thereafter, 4th respondent has issued revised show cause notice dated 05.03.2024. On receipt of the said revised show cause notice, petitioner has submitted explanation dated 12.03.2024 contending that they have not conducted any illegal excavation in Sy. No. 266/1 and claim the gravel used was only overburden from their valid quarry leases and sister concerns, it was also further contended that there is no revenue loss to the Mines Department since the Roads and Buildings Department already deducted seigniorage fee from their work bills, without considering the said reply ,and also submitted the copies of documents as proof with the same the 4th respondent has issued demand notice dated 16.04.2024 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,88,00,936/- which 27 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch includes ten times penalty of Rs.2,37,24,000/- stating that he has considered the reply submitted by the petitioner. Challenging the said demand notice petitioner filed the present writ petition. 1-b. Perusal of the impugned demand notice would reveal that 4th respondent has not considered the aforesaid contentions raised and enclosure attached by the petitioner, and there is no justification given for imposing maximum penalty of 10 times. 1-c. Therefore, the impugned demand notice is in violation of the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments, procedure laid down under Rule 26 of the TSMMC Rules.
2-a. W.P. 34020 of 2024, 4th respondent ADM&G had issued show cause notice dated 09.10.2024 based on Technical Staff Report/Inspection Report/ETS report dated 09.10.2024. Petitioner has submitted a detailed reply dated 04.11.2024 contending that excavation was only incidental to building construction, not for commercial mining, and the excavated rock was crushed/used onsite for backfilling and construction, they had all statutory clearances and had paid Environmental Impact Fee under G.O.Ms. No.34/2015 & G.O.Ms.No. 8/2016, which substitutes seigniorage for such construction excavations and since Environment Impact 28 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch Fee already covers the material used onsite, no separate seigniorage or penalty is payable,further petitioners also submitted the copies of documents as proof with the same Thereafter, 4th respondent has issued demand notice, dated 25.11.2024 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.86,63,65,720/- including ten times penalty of 78,76,05,200/-, stating that he has considered the said reply dated 04.11.2024. The same is impugned in the present writ petition.
2-b. Perusal of the said impugned demand notice would reveal that there is no consideration of the contentions raised and enclosures attached by the petitioner in the reply dated 04.11.2024 and there is no justification in imposing maximum penalty of 10 times.
2-c. Therefore, the impugned demand notice is in violation of the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments, procedure laid down under Rule 26 of the TSMMC Rules.
3-a. W.P.16550 of 2024, 4th respondent ADM&G, had issued show cause notice, dated 29.02.2024 based on a Technical Staff Report/ Inspection report, dated 28.02.2024, ETS survey report dated 20.10.2023. Petitioner has submitted a reply dated 18.03.2024 contending that alleged excavated material was entirely used in 29 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch Government civil works, and seigniorage fee was already deducted at source by Roads and Buildings Department and Panchayat Raj Departments under G.O.Ms. No. 23/1999 and there was no intentional encroachment beyond lease, the ETS survey was conducted without notice, behind their back, and is unscientific/incorrect. Hence, the demand is procedurally unfair and duplicative, as payment has already been made through deductions, further petitioners also submitted the copies of documents as proof with the same Thereafter, 4th respondent has issued demand notice, dated 25.05.2024 directing petitioner to pay Rs.41,40,80,102/- towards normal seigniorage fee along with penalty i.e. normal seigniorage fee of Rs. 4,09,72,840/- and penalty Rs.32,63,98,225/- ten times the normal seigniorage fee and other statutory amounts of Rs.4,67,09,037/-. The same is impugned in the present writ petition. 3-b. Perusal of the said impugned demand notice would reveal that there is no consideration of the contentions raised and enclosures attached by the petitioner in the reply dated 18.03.2024 and there is no justification in imposing maximum penalty of 10 times.
30
KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch 3-c. Therefore, the impugned demand notice is in violation of the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments, procedure laid down under Rule 26 of the TSMMC Rules.
4-a. W.P. 25651 of 2024, 4th respondent ADM&G, had issued show cause notice dated 14.08.2023 based on joint survey and inspection conducted on 27.07.2023 to which the petitioner sent a detailed reply on 03.11.2023, contending that that the alleged excess excavation is only due to survey discrepancies between the earlier chain survey and the later DGPS survey, which has since been corrected by the authorities. All the material was used in Government works and the seigniorage fee and DMF were already recovered at source, and hence no penalty is liable, further petitioners also submitted the copies of documents as proof with the same .Thereafter, 4th respondent has issued demand notice, dated 28.12.2023 directing petitioner to pay Rs.3,80,81,615/- ten times the normal seigniorage fee. The same is impugned in the present writ petition.
4-b. Perusal of the said impugned demand notice would reveal that there is no consideration of the contentions raised and 31 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch enclosures attached by the petitioner in the reply dated 03.11.2023 and there is no justification in imposing maximum penalty 10 times. 4-c. Therefore, the impugned demand notice is in violation of the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments, procedure laid down under Rule 26 of the TSMMC Rules.
5-a. W.P. 33461 of 2024, 4th respondent ADM&G, has issued show cause notice 28.02.2024 based on inspection report dated 24.02.2024 to which the petitioner sent a detailed reply on 05.03.2024, contending that no illegal mining was carried out and the gravel in question was only surface soil cut and reused within the layout for road formation and leveling, without any transportation or commercial extraction. They rely on G.O.Ms. No. 139 dated 12.11.2013, which exempts seigniorage for land leveling for civil purposes, and contend that the inspection was done without their presence, rendering the assessment arbitrary and unsustainable, further petitioners also submitted the copies of documents as proof with the same .Thereafter, 4th respondent has issued demand notice, dated 05.11.2024 directing petitioner to pay Rs. 4,06,43,748/- ten times the normal seigniorage fees, The same is impugned in the present writ petition.
32
KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch 5-b. Perusal of the said impugned demand notice would reveal that there is no consideration of the contentions raised and enclosure attached by the petitioner in the reply dated 05.03.2024 and there is no justification in imposing maximum penalty of 10 times.
5-c. Therefore, the impugned demand notice is in violation of the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments, procedure laid down under Rule 26 of the TSMMC Rules.
6-a. W.P. 15607 of 2024, 4th respondent ADM&G has issued show cause notice dated 20.02.2024 based on technical staff report dated 17.02.2024 to which the petitioner sent a detailed reply on 04.03.2024 Contending that no penalty is leviable since they have already paid Environmental Impact Fee of ₹1,61,70,768/- under G.O.Ms. No. 34/2015 and G.O.Ms. No. 8/2016, which covers the entire built-up area including parking and pathways. They rely on Government clarifications and the Director of Mines & Geology's circulars to assert that once such fee is paid, no separate seigniorage or penalty can be imposed, rendering the impugned notice unsustainable, further petitioners also submitted the copies of documents as proof with the same .Thereafter, 4th respondent has 33 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch issued demand notice, dated 20.05.2024 directing petitioner to pay Rs. 17,49,36,905/- ten times the normal seigniorage fees, the same is impugned in the present writ petition.
6-b. Perusal of the said impugned demand notice would reveal that there is no consideration of the contentions raised and enclosure attached by the petitioner in the reply dated 04.03.2024 and there is no justification in imposing maximum penalty of 10 times.
6-c. Therefore, the impugned demand notice is in violation of the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments, procedure laid down under Rule 26 of the TSMMC Rules.
7-a. W.P. 27699 of 2024, 4th respondent ADM&G, has issued show cause notice dated 08.05.2024 based on ETS report dated 07.02.2024 to which the petitioner sent a detailed reply on 04.03.2024 Contending that quarry operations were carried out strictly within the leased area, and the alleged discrepancies arose only due to a shift from the earlier chain survey to the ETS/DGPS method. It is further contended that the entire quantity excavated was supplied for Government works through licensed crushers, and the seigniorage fee has already been deducted at source under 34 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch G.O.Ms. No. 23/1999, leaving no loss to the State, hence, no penalty is liable, further petitioners also submitted the copies of documents as proof with the same .Thereafter, 4th respondent has issued demand notice, dated 19.06.2024 directing petitioner to pay Rs. 4,28,909/ along with ten times penalty of Rs. 42,89,090/- ten times the normal seigniorage fees, The same is impugned in the present writ petition.
7-b. Perusal of the said impugned demand notice would reveal that there is no consideration of the contentions raised and enclosure attached by the petitioner in the reply dated 04.03.2024 and there is no justification in imposing maximum penalty of 10 times.
7-c. Therefore, the impugned demand notice is in violation of the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments, procedure laid down under Rule 26 of the TSMMC Rules.
8. W.P.No. 26394 of 2024, 4th respondent ADM&G, has issued show cause notice dated 21.05.2024 pursuant to ETS survey report dated 17.10.2023, the petitioner failed to submit a reply to the above show cause notice due to severe viral fever, further respondent No. 4 issued a demand notice dated 31.07.2024 levying 35 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch Rs. 18,72,44,857/- towards normal seigniorage fee along with penalty i.e. normal seigniorage fee Rs.2,62,24,770/- and penalty of Rs.13,11,23,850/- ten times the normal seigniorage fee and other statutory amounts of Rs. 2,98,96,237/- and the same demand notice is challenged in this writ petition.
9. W.P. No.26117 of 2024, 4th respondent ADM&G has issued show cause notice dated 05.06.2024 basing on ETS Survey report dated 26.03.2023, the petitioner failed to submit a reply to the above show cause notice contending that he was not well, suffering with viral fever. However, 4th respondent issued a demand notice dated 12.08.2024 demanding an amount of Rs. 10,51,08,178/- i.e. normal seigniorage fee Rs. 1,29,27,525/-, penalty of Rs. 7,74,43,275/- ten times the normal seigniorage fee and another statutory amount of Rs 1,47,37,378/-. The same demand notice is challenged in this writ petition.
10. W.P. No 26123 of 2024, 4th respondent ADM&G, has issued show cause notice dated 20.06.2024 basing on the ETS survey report dated 26.03.2023, the petitioner failed to submit a reply to the above show cause notice due to illness, further respondent no. 4 issued a demand notice dates 12.08.2024 levying 36 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch Rs. 5,08,75,106/- i.e. normal seigniorage fee Rs. 71,25,365/- and penalty Rs. 3,56,26,825/- 10 times the normal seigniorage fee and other statutory amounts to Rs 81,22,916/- and the same demand notice is challenged in this writ petetion 11-a. W.P. No. 23068 of 2024, 4th respondent ADM&G, has issued show cause notice dated 24.05.2024 basing on ETS survey report dated 25.03.2023. Petitioner failed to submit a reply to the above show cause notice contending that he has not received the said show cause notice. Thereafter, 4th respondent has issued demand notice dated 03.08.2024 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 6,34,12,768/- i.e. normal seigniorage fee Rs. 88,81,340/-, penalty of Rs. 4,44,06,700/- ten times the normal seigniorage fee and other statutory amounts to Rs 1,01,24,728/-. The same is impugned in the present writ petition. 11-b. Petitioner has specifically contended that he has not received the said show cause notice. There is specific assertion to the said effect in paragraph No. 5 of writ affidavit. Even then, there is no denial of the same by the 4th respondent and he has not filed proof of service of the said show cause notice on the petitioner. However, in the impugned demand notice, he has alleged that the 37 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch petitioner failed to submit explanation despite receipt of show cause notice. Therefore, 4th respondent cannot contend that petitioner failed to submit explanation despite receipt of show cause notice in the absence of proof of service of the said show cause notice on the petitioner. Thus,the this impugned demand notice dated 03.08.2024 is arbitrary, in violation of the procedure laid down under Rule 26 of TSMMC Rules, and the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments.
12. W.P.No.27298 of 2024, 4th respondent ADM&G, has issued show cause notice dated 05.06.2024 basing on the ETS survey report dated 26.03.2023, the petitioner failed to submit a reply to the above show cause notice due to illness, further respondent No. 4 issued a demand notice dates 06.08.2024 levying Rs. 9,44,29,487/- towards normal seigniorage fee along with penalty i.e. normal seigniorage fee Rs. 1,03,20,765/- and penalty Rs. 7,23,43,050/- ten times the normal seigniorage fee and other statutory amounts to Rs 1,17,65,672/- and the same demand notice is challenged in this writ petetion
13. W.P.No.27265 of 2024, 4th respondent ADM&G issued a show cause notice dated 26.06.2024 basing on the ETS survey 38 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch report dated 25.03.2023, the petitioner failed to submit a reply to the above show cause notice due to illness, further respondent no. 4 issued a demand notice dates 20.08.2024 levying Rs. 94,56,038/- towards normal seigniorage fee along with penalty i.e. normal seigniorage fee Rs. 13,24,375/- and penalty Rs. 66,21,875/- ten times the normal seigniorage fee and other statutory amounts to Rs 15,09,788/- and the same demand notice is challenged in this writ petition.
14. W.P. No 25183 of 2024, 4th respondent ADM&G issued a show cause notice dated08.07.2024 based on ETS survey report dated 27.08.2022 and 29.08.2022, the petitioner failed to submit a reply to the above show cause notice due to illness, further respondent no. 4 issued a demand notice dates 20.08.2024 levying Rs. 65,49,62,221/- towards normal seigniorage fee along with penalty ie normal seigniorage fee Rs. 8,27,67,685/- and penalty Rs. 47,78,39,375/- 10 times the normal seigniorage fee and other statutory amounts to Rs 9,43,55,161/- and the same demand notice is challenged in this writ petetion
30. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, as discussed supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that 4th respondent - Assistant 39 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch Director, Mines and Geology, has power/jurisdiction to initiate proceeding under Rule 26 of the TSMMC Rules and also levy penalty, provided he shall follow the procedure laid down under Rule 26 of the Rules, principles of natural justice, consider the contentions raised by the petitioners in the reply and documents filed along with the reply, offer fair hearing and issue demand notice. He has to justify his action of imposing maximum penalty of ten times as per Proviso to Rule 26 (2) of the Rules 1966. He also has to consider the aforesaid aspects.
31. As discussed supra, in the present batch of cases, 4th respondent - Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, failed to follow the said procedure and failed to consider the aforesaid aspects. He has imposed maximum penalty of ten times without assigning any reasons.
32. It is also apt to note that 4th respondent has issued impugned demand notices demanding the aforesaid huge amount (details are specifically mentioned supra) including maximum penalty of ten times without following due procedure laid down under law including fair opportunity to the petitioner.
33. It is also apt to note that in some cases, though the petitioners are contending that they failed to submit the explanations to the show cause notices on the ground of suffering with viral fever, they have not 40 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch filed any proof of the same and they have not submitted a letter to the 4th respondent seeking more time to submit explanation stating that they are suffering with viral fever. Therefore, they are also at fault.
34. It is also apt to note that in some cases, petitioners are contending that 4th respondent has issued show cause notice basing on ETS/Technical Staff Report/Field Survey Report, but copies of the same are not furnished to them. Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioners have not submitted any letter requesting the Assistant Director to furnish copies the said reports or any proceedings / information referred in the said show cause notices. Thus, they are at fault.
35. However, as discussed supra, it is the duty of the 4th respondent to follow the procedure mandatory under Rule 26 of the TSMMC Rules, the aforesaid aspects and the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments. Having demanded the aforesaid huge amount from the petitioners, 4th respondent should have followed the aforesaid procedure and considered the aforesaid aspects. In the present case, 4th respondent failed to follow and consider the same.
36. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the aforesaid legal position, to meet the ends of justice, without expressing 41 KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch any opinion on the same, the impugned demand notices alone are set aside, directing 4th respondent to initiate fresh process by strictly following the procedure laid down under law, the aforesaid aspects and the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments. CONCLUSION
37. In the result, the :-
i. The writ petitions i.e. W.P. Nos. 12748, 16550, 23068, 25183, 25651, 26117, 26123, 26394, 27265, 27298, 33461 and 34020 of 2024 are allowed.
ii. The impugned demand notices in W.P. Nos. 12748, 16550, 23068, 25183, 25651, 26117, 26123, 26394, 27265, 27298, 33461 and 34020 of 2024 are hereby set aside.
iii. W.P.Nos.15607 and 27699 of 2024 are allowed in part, setting aside only the demand notices by holding that the show-cause notices issued therein are proper. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to seek information if any from Respondent No. 4 ADM&G within (01) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On receipt of said request, Respondent No. 4 - ADM&G shall furnish the same to the petitioners. Thereafter petitioner shall submit reply within (01) week.42
KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch iv. All the matters are remanded back to the concerned Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, for fresh consideration, strictly in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. v. The petitioners shall, within one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, submit a written request to the Assistant Director for supply copies of all documents relied upon, including survey reports, ETS survey data, inspection reports, and any connected material.
vi. The Assistant Director shall, within one (01) week thereafter, supply the requested documents/material to the petitioners. vii. The petitioners shall, within one (01) week thereafter, file their replies to the show cause notices, enclosing any supporting material they wish to rely upon.
viii. The Assistant Director shall, within one (01) week from receipt of such replies, consider the same objectively, evaluate the quantum of penalty, and pass a fresh, reasoned demand notice in accordance with law.
ix. If petitioners fail to submit explanations within the aforesaid timelines, Liberty is granted to respondent no. 4 ADM&G to proceed further pursuant to the said show cause notices. 43
KL,J W.P. No.12748 of 2024 & batch x. The Assistant Director is further directed to record reasons for conclusions arrived at and ensure that the principles of natural justice is followed.
xi. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations of unauthorized quarrying or transportation, and the authority shall decide the same independently on the basis of material available and submissions advanced.
38. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in all the writ petitions shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 24th September, 2025 Mgr/vvr