ORDER :

The petitioner had been granted lease over 2 Hectares of land in Sy.No.11 of Parawada Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District on 28.07.2010, for a period of 10 years.

2. While the quarry was in operation, the technical staff of the office of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam are said to have conducted a survey and inspection on 20.08.2022 and 25.08.2020. This survey is said to have been conducted in the presence of Sri V.Venkata Rao, who is the husband of the writ petitioner herein. On the basis of this inspection, a show cause notice was issued on 09.09.2020 to the petitioner stating that the inspection of 20.08.2020 and 25.08.2020 had revealed that the petitioner had undertaken illegal quarrying outside the lease demarcated area due to which payment of seigniorage fee had been evaded and to show cause why seigniorage fee, penalty and other amounts should not be collect from the petitioner on account of such illegal quarrying.

3. In reply to this show cause notice, the petitioner had submitted an interim reply dated 28.09.2020. In the said reply, the petitioner apart from raising various issues had contended that the inspection of 20.08.2020 and 25.08.2020 had been conducted behind the back of the petitioner and sought a copy of the said inspection report. The petitioner had taken the stand that she would be able to file a proper reply after only the inspection report is supplied.

4. The Assistant Director of Mines, Visakhapatnam had issued a Demand Notice No.2871/Q/2006 dated 14.10.2020. In this demand notice, the Assistant Director stated that the survey and inspection reports sought by the petitioner had been furnished on her with request to submit her reply on or before 06.10.2020. As no reply had been given, the Assistant Director of Mines is said to have passed the demand notice.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that even though this demand notice is said to have been issued on 14.10.2020, the petitioner was under the impression that the matter was still pending before the Assistant Director and the petitioner had even filed an application on 31.03.2021 under the Right to Information Act, through her son, requiring a copy of the inspection reports. It is only at that stage, the petitioner is said to have been served with a copy of the impugned demand notice, which was challenged by her, by way of W.P.No.12853 of 2021. However, this writ petition could not be proceeded with on account of the Covid-19 pandemic and was withdrawn with liberty. Thereafter, this writ petition was filed.

6. The primary contention of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the Assistant Director of Mines, arrayed as respondent No.3 in the writ petition had not furnished a copy of the inspection reports, sought by the petitioner in her letter dated 28.09.2020. It is the further contention of the petitioner that on account of the non furnishing of the said report, further objections and contentions could not be raised by the petitioner.

7. Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement in the demand notice that the reports had been served on the petitioner on 29.09.2020 is incorrect and the petitioner was awaiting the service of the copy of the said reports. But the 3rd respondent without furnishing the copy of the report had unilaterally passed the impugned order and the same suffers from violation of principles of natural justice as the report which is the basis of the show cause notice and the demand notice had not been served on the petitioner and the petitioner was not given an adequate opportunity of hearing.

8. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 also. In this counter affidavit, the 3rd respondent took the stand that the inspections of 20.08.22020 and 25.08.2020 had revealed that the petitioner had conducted excavation of minor minerals beyond the lease area given to the petitioner and that the petitioner had no