ORDER :

The facts in each of these cases, differ slightly. However, since they all raise a common question of law, they are being disposed of by way of this common order, by consent of both sides.

W.P.No.8390 of 2018 & W.P.No.12334 of 2021

2. The petitioner in both these writ petitions is the same. The petitioner had been granted a quarry lease for road metal and building stone over an extent of 2.5 hectares in Sy.No.127 of Kadakalla Village, Veeraghattam Mandal, Srikakulam District. The quarry of the petitioner is said to have been inspected by the Vigilance and Enforcement Department, who had thereupon addressed letters to the Mining Department to take action against the petitioner on the basis of the inspection report. Pursuant to this communication, a show cause notice dated 20.01.2018 was issued by the Assistant Director of Mines, Srikakulam, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why certain penalties etc., should not be collected from the petitioner on the ground of evasion of seigniorage fee. The petitioner is said to have given his reply on 12.02.2018 setting out the facts including the contention that the entire exercise had been conducted in the absence of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Assistant Director of Mines had issued a demand notice dated 19.02.2018 calling upon the petitioner to pay certain amounts of money as penalty for infraction of the provisions of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the MMDR Act’)and Rule 26 of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Concession Rules’). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.3390 of 2018.

3. While the above writ petition was pending, action was again initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the information said to have been given by the Vigilance and Enforcement Department by way of of show cause notice dated 09.04.2021. Thereafter, a demand notice was issued on 22.04.2021 by the Assistant Director of Mines, Srikakulam calling upon the petitioner to pay certain amounts of money as penalty and infraction of the provisions of the MMDR Act and the Concession Rules. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed W.P.No.12334 of 2021.

W.P.No.27815 of 2021 & W.P.No.27952 of 2021

4. Both the writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner. The petitioner had been granted a quarry lease for road metal and building stone over an extent of 7.05 hectares, in Sy.No.251 of Seethanagaram Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam. During the pendency of the said lease the petitioner had been issued a show cause notice to which a reply had been given. Thereafter, a demand notice dated 07.08.2021 was issued. The petitioner filed W.P.No.15863 of 2020 before this Court and this Court had remanded the matter back to the Assistant Director of Mines, Visakhapatnam to re-conduct the entire exercise after giving necessary information to the petitioner. The Assistant Director of Mines again issued a demand notice, against which the petitioner filed W.P.No.25176 of 2020. This Writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy of appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.A.No.64 of 2021, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent therein, which was dismissed on 21.09.2021 without setting out any reasons for such a dismissal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27952 of 2021.

5. In W.P.No.27815 of 2021 the petitioner, in relation to the quarry lease over an extent of 7.05 hectares in Sy.No.251 of Seethanagaram Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, had been issued a show cause notice dated 14.07.2020 on the basis of an inspection report said to have been given by the Vigilance and Enforcement Department contending that the petitioner had obtained dispatch permits for road metal beyond what was actually excavated in the quarry and to show cause