Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 854
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
G.Ankamma Chowdary – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
W.P.Nos.29067 and 28102 of 2021
Decided On : 12-08-2024
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Act Referred
ARMS ACT: S.25(1)(c)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.120(b), S.302
TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT: S.3, S.5
Headnote
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Includes authority to review the validity of show cause notices if issued with pre-determined conclusions as per precedents. (Paras 9, 12)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner challenged a demand notice for penalties towards granite excavation and subsequent cancellation of mining rights based on purported violations. Previous judicial interventions did not yield resolution, leading to new demands.
Findings of Court:
Judicial review established illegality in the demand notice (No.873/V&E/2020-1) and cancellation proceedings, emphasizing predetermination.
Issues: Legality of the demand notice and exercise of statutory powers by mining authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: Court affirmed that statutory authorities must not act under external influence and must retain independent discretion.
Result: Writ petitions allowed, demand notice and determination proceedings set aside.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: P Roy Reddy
For the Respondent: GP For Mines And Geology
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions filed under similar facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. detailed history of lease and show-cause notices. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments against the legality of show-cause notices. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 17) |
| 4. court observations on established legal principles regarding jurisdiction and decision-making. (Para 14 , 16) |
| 5. final conclusion regarding the legality of the demand notice. (Para 18) |
| 6. court's conclusion to set aside the demand notice. (Para 19 , 20) |
ORDER :
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
The Writ Petition No.29067 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief.
“….. to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari by calling for the 2nd respondents Demand Notice No.873/V&E/2020-1, dt.27.10.2021 in respect of the lease hold rights of the petitioner over an extent of 4.00 Hectares in Sy.No.103 of Konidena (V), Ballikuruva (M), Prakasam District and quash the same……..”
The Writ Petition No.28102 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief.
“…..to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari by calling for the 2nd respondents Proceedings No.873/V&E/2020-1, dt.27.10.2021 whereby determination (cancellation) was effected of the petitioners Mining Leasehold rights pertaining to excavation of colour granite over an extent of 4.00 Hectares in Sy.No.103 of Konidena(V), Ballikuruva (M), Prakasam District and quash the same……..”
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.29067 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 dated 07.03.2009 for a period of 20 years i.e., upto 06.03.2029, for excavation of colour granite over 4.00 Hectares in Survey No.103 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.5073 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 dated 13.03.2020 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.8516 of 2020 and the same was allowed on 04.03.2020 along with a batch of writ petitions, including W.P.No.13646 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.8516 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.13646 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.15076 of 2020 and the same was allowed by this Court on 27.08.2020, setting aside the lease determination proceedi
