An administrative order resulting in civil consequences is unsustainable if passed without observing the principles of natural justice, specifically by denying the affected party access to documents relied upon by the authority to enable them to offer an effective defense.

ORDER :

MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J.

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief:

“to issue a writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Demand Notice No. vide.NO.1751/Q1/2011 dated 25.02.2026 (received on 09.03.2026) by the District Mines and Geology Officer, Chittoor, and without considering the request made by the petitioner for providing necessary documents for giving proper reply as arbitrary, predetermined, bad in law, illegal, unjust, against principles of natural Justice and unconstitutional and contrary to the AP Minor Mineral Rules 1966 and The Mines And Minerals (development and Regulations) Act 1957 and to set aside the same and pass”

2. Heard Ms.G.N.Umarani, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Ms.G.N.Umarani, submits that the 2^nd respondent mining authority granted quarry lease for Colour Granite Black over an extent of 0.732 hectors in Sy.No.325/P & 247/P of Katikapalli Village, S.R.Puram Mandal, Chittoor District, in favour of the petitioner for a period of 20 years, vide proceedings No.2069/R4-1/2012 dated 05.05.2015.

4. According to the learned counsel, in furtherance of 2^nd respondent’s proceedings, the concerned Assistant Director of Mines and Geology also executed quarry lease deed, dated 03.07.2015 and also issued work order vide proceedings No.1751/Q1/2011 dated 03.07.2015 for the period commencing from 03.07.2015 to 02.07.2035. In terms of the same, the petitioner is conducting mining operations as per law.

5. The learned counsel further states that thereafter, the 3^rd respondent issued a show cause notice vide No.1751/Q/2011 dated 08.01.2026(according to the petitioner, the said show cause notice was received by him on 30.01.2026). The learned counsel further elaborates that the said show cause notice mainly based upon the survey and inspection conducted by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Tirupathi along with other officials. In the said show cause notice, the 3^rdrespondent alleged violation of lease conditions as well as statutory realm by the petitioner. She further contends that after receiving the show cause notice, the petitioner preferred a written representation dated 10.02.2026 to the 3^rd respondent seeking to provide the relevant reports and documents so as to give an effective explanation to the said show cause notice.

6. The learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to Ex.P2 written representation of the petitioner dated 10.02.2026 addressed to the 3^rd Respondent.

7. According to the learned counsel, the 3^rd respondent without taking into consideration of the petitioner’s written representation dated 10.02.2026 seeking to provide documents, unilaterally and arbitrarily issued the impugned demand notice dated 25.02.2026. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly pointed out the impugned demand notice is hit by principles of natural justice.

8. Conversely, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology states that granting as well as executing of lease deed and work order in favour of the petitioner is not in dispute. However, she contends that as the petitioner violated the statutory provisions of APMMC Rules 1966, the acts of the petitioner are detrimental to the public exchequer, hence, as per the procedure invoked, the concerned mining authorities rightly issued show cause notice, followed by demand notice. She further submits that the impugned order is appealable, hence the very initiation of writ petition before this court by invoking Article 226 of Constitution of India itself is not maintainable.

9. This Court consciously heard the rival submissions made by both the counsel and also perused the material on record, which reveals that indisputably petitioner was granted lease for a period of 20 years, commenci