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
| 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.
The Writ Petition No.28102 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.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
Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and others
Seimens Ltd. V. State of Maharashtra and others (2006) 12 SCC 33
State of Punjab and another v Gurdial Singh and others
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Anirudhsinhji Karansinhi Jadeja and another v. State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC 302
Devinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others
Kalari Nagabhushana Rao v. The Collector, Panchayat Wing, Guntur and Ors.
Manohar Lal (dead) by Lrs v. Ugrasen (dead) by Lrs. And others (2010) 11 SCC 557
Rajaram Jaiswal v Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad and another
Statutory authorities must exercise powers independently, and actions based on predetermination or external influence are deemed illegal.
Writs under Article 226 can be maintained against predetermination by authorities, regardless of alternative remedies available, invalidating actions based on extraneous influences.
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.
Pre-determined issuance of demand notices violates legal principles requiring fair process, rendering them null and void.
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.