2021 Supreme(AP) 161

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
D. Ramesh, J.
Veejee Mines And Minerals – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of A.P and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.8496, 8499 and 8597 of 2020
Decided On : 30-04-2021

Point of Law: For the purpose of Rule 35-A, if the Government feels that the orders passed by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, on 16.10.2018 were not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Director of Mines and Geology, who is competent authority can set aside the said proceedings, then only they can invoke Rule 35-A.

Headnote:

Mines and Minerals Act - Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966 - Rule 35 - Violation of principles of natural justice - Illegal excavation and transportation of Quartz - No jurisdiction - Mining lease for Quartz granted by Assistant Director of Mines and Geology all petitioners are conducting mining operations without contravening any of conditions of mining lease as well as provisions of the Mines and Minerals Act and A.P. Minor and Mineral Concessions Rules - Quarry leased area of petitioners were inspected by staff of Office of 4th respondent/Assistant Director of Mines and Geology Kurnool and submitted inspection report to 4th respondent - Basing on said report 4th respondent has issued show cause notices to petitioners stating that there are certain discrepancies found in Quartz mineral excavated with reference to dispatch permits obtained quantity and same is in violation of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and asked petitioners firms to submit reply within days - On receipt of said show cause notice petitioners submitted detailed explanations and also given details in respect of each of working area and requested to drop further proceedings - Apart from that petitioners also submitted additional explanations wherein further details with regard to quantity excavated in each of assessment years and number of permits obtained from department every year - Considering said reply Assistant Director of Mines and Geology has issued show cause notices to petitioners alleging that there is a variation in quantity of permits obtained by petitioners –

Finding of the Court; Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents have submitted that order of 5th respondent is only a report submitted to Director of Mines and Geology and accordingly Director of Mines and Geology has not passed any final orders - Therefore as per Rules the Government can take action or enquire at any time against illegal mining and transportation of mineral - Hence basing on request made of basing on endorsement made by Minister 2nd respondent initiated action on inspection done by competent authorities basing on report only Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Kurnool has issued show cause notices and passed final demand notice - He further contended that even though there is Covid restrictions authorities have issued show cause notices through e-mails hence petitioners as well can submit their response or replies through e-mail only to protract issue petitioners have submitted a letter for extension of time considering same authorities have rejected their claim for extension of time and passed impugned orders there is no violation of principles of natural justice while passing impugned orders And he further stated that as per Rule 35 of APMMC Rules, 1966 petitioners have to file an appeal before 2nd respondent and in that view writ petitions are not maintainable - It is seen that while exercising discretion by respondents without considering relevant material and without interdicting orders passed by competent authority present impugned orders are passed – Hence same is violative of Rule 35-A of APMMC Rules - For purpose of Rule 35-A if Government feels that orders passed by Assistant Director of Mines and Geology were not in accordance with provisions of Act Director of Mines and Geology who is competent authority can set aside said proceedings then only they can invoke Rule 35-A - Contradicting same Government cannot breach provisions of statute and made orders contrary to same - In view of Rule 35-A of APMMC Rules 1966 1st and 2nd respondents have no power to initiate action without interdicting orders passed by competent authority –

Result: Writ petitions are disposed of