A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions, and failure to do so violates the principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

K. Vijaya Lakshmi, J.

1. Heard Sri O. Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the Memo No. 5679/M.I(1)/2019- 2 dated 21.07.2020 of the 1 respondent in dismissing the revision application filed under Rule 35-A of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short "Rules').

3. (a) Case of the petitioner is that, he was granted quarry lease for Silica sand in Survey No. 36/P of Addepally village, Chillakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, admeasuring an extent of 16.512 hectares in the year 2010 and since then, he has been conducing mining operations without contravening any of the conditions of mining lease or the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') and subsequently under the provisions of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.

(b) While so, the Sub Collector, Gudur constituted teams for joint inspection of silica sand mining leases and has submitted a report to the 4th respondent; based on the said report, the 4 respondent issued show cause notice dated 24.07.2019 to the petitioner, alleging that there is variation between the total extracted quantity and the permitted quantity of about 81,029 MT, that dispatch permits obtained by the petitioner are for lesser quantity than the mineral extracted from the leased area and that the petitioner transported the difference of 81,029 MT without valid seigniorage fees.

(c) To the said notice, petitioner submitted his representation on 08.08.2019 stating that the mine was not inspected in his presence and also requested to furnish the sketch showing the pits whose measurements were taken, the working sheet of how the volume and tonnage worked out, statement showing year wise permitted quantity and actual dispatch taken into account, copies of mineral revenue assessment from the date of inception, any evidence basing on which the presumption of having dispatched the quantity from the mine and whether the stock available at mine head was measured and taken into account while calculating the quantity of mine dispatched, if so, the measurements of the stock available at mine head and also stated that the reply to the show-cause notice shall be submitted after receipt of the above information.

(d) Without furnishing the said information, the 4 respondent issued demand notice alleging that the "lease holder has not furnished any documentary evidence in token of discrepancy of transported quantity of 81,029 MTS of silica sand lifted and transported and hence reply furnished by lessee is not considerable" and directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,70,91,675/- as per Rules 26(1) and 34(1) of the Rules.

(e) Challenging the said show cause notice, petitioner filed WP No. 12915 of 2019 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 08.11.2019 granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the authority by way of filing a revision under Rule 35 of the Rules and further directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps for a period of four weeks.

(f) Pursuant to the said direction, petitioner filed a revision before the 1 respondent on 25.11.2019; in the grounds of revision, it is contended before the Revisional Authority that as per the production dispatch register, the total silica mined is 3,20,000 MT and the balance stock available on that day was 49,327 MT and that the 4 respondent has not deducted 10% as production wastage while mining and dispatching the material; as per the approved mining plan/mining scheme it is 32,000 MT and if the same is deducted, the variation would be 588 MT i.e., 0.18% and the variation of dispatch is -299 MT; it is also contended that the inspection was conducted in the absence of the petit