IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
M/s. Kishore Granites Pvt. Ltd., - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
W.P.Nos.29056 and 28142 of 2021
Decided On : 12-08-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks to quash mining lease cancellation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. history of mining lease challenges and violations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. legal malice and colorable exercise of power. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. arguments against jurisdiction and procedural violations. (Para 9 , 11 , 13 , 16) |
| 5. determination process must follow statutory guidelines. (Para 15 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. demand notices ruled illegal, petitions allowed. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
ORDER :
(K. Manmadha Rao, J.) :
The Writ Petition No.29056 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief :
The Writ Petition No.28142 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
2. Since the petitioner, facts and issues involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, this Court find it expedient to decide these matters by a common order.
3. The facts in both the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore, W.P.No.29056 of 2021 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein are referred to for convenience.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted quarry lease for a period of 20 years i.e., upto 23.08.2026, for excavation of colour granite over 3.0930 Hectares in Survey No.103/P of Konidena Village, Ballikuruva Mandal, Prakasam district, under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1956 and the AP Mines Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. While so, a show-cause notice was issued by the Additional Director of Mines and Geology on 13.02.2020, seeking to cancel the quarry lease that had been granted to the petitioner. The same was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.5006 of 2020 and the same was disposed of on 28.02.2020, setting aside the said show-cause notice, while giving opportunity to the competent authority. Therefore, another show-cause notice vide Procdgs No.873/V&E/2020-6, dated 20.03.2020 was issued by the Director of Mines and Geology-2nd respondent, pursuant to the instructions contained in Government Memo dated 29.01.2020 and also a pre-meditated “Alert Note”, dated 03.01.2020 of the Director General, Vigilance and Enforcement (an authority extraneous to the MMDR Act), 1956 and the statutory rules frameed thereunder). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8515 of 2020 and the same was allowed on 04.03.2021 along with a batch of writ petitions, including W.P.No.13700 of 2020, wherein the Demand Notice dated 31.07.2020 issued to the petitioner was challenged and the said writ petition was allowed on 04.03.2021. Then, another Demand Notice dated 31.07.2020 was issued by 2nd respondent, inspite of pendency of W.P.No.8515 of 2020 and subsistence of interim order therein, calling upon the petitioner to pay seigniorage fee and penalty. The same was challenged in W.P.No.13700 of 2020 and this Court after hearing both sides, suspended the aforesaid demand notice dated 31.07.2020.
5. Again the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 20.08.2020, determing (cancelling) the lease of the petitioner. The same was challenged in W.P.No.15077 of 2020 and the same was allowed by this Court on 27.08.2020, setting aside the
All Bengal Excise Licensees Association Vs. Raghabendra Singh & Ors
Anirudhsinhji Karansinhi Jadeja and another v. State of Gujarat
Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas
Devinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others
K.I. Shephard and Others v. Union of India and Others (1987) 4 SCC 431: AIR 1988 SC 686
Kalari Nagabhushana Rao v. The Collector, Panchayat Wing, Guntur and Ors
Manohar Lal (dead) by Lrs v. Ugrasen (dead) by Lrs. And others
Mulraj Vs. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj
Rajaram Jaiswal v Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad and another
Rajesh Kumar & Ors. v. D.C.I.T. & Ors. 2006 (11) SCALE 409
Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and others
Seimens Ltd. V. State of Maharashtra and others
Shri Shekhar Ghosh v. Union of India & Anr. 2006 (11) SCALE 363
Special Director and Another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another
State of Punjab and another v Gurdial Singh and others
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr. AIR 1987 SC 943
Union of India and Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana
V.C. Banaras Hindu University and Ors. v. Shrikant
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others
Pre-determined issuance of demand notices violates legal principles requiring fair process, rendering them null and void.
Writ petitions can be maintained against show cause notices if they demonstrate pre-determined conclusions by the authority, constituting a legal mala fide exercise of power.
Writs under Article 226 can be maintained against predetermination by authorities, regardless of alternative remedies available, invalidating actions based on extraneous influences.
Statutory authorities must exercise powers independently, and actions based on predetermination or external influence are deemed illegal.
Point of law: Rule 26(1) of APMMC Rules 1966, Rule 12(5)(h)(iii) of APMMC, 1966 for having excavated and transported 749 cum of Colour Granite without payment of seigniorage fee in contravention to c....
Point of law: Rule 20 of the Rules of 1966 provides that subject to a contract to the contrary, a quarry lease granted under the rules shall confer on the lessee, the right to quarry, carry away, sel....
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 D....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.