JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the 2nd respondent's proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.A- 2/4085/10 dated 26.08.2010 as confirmed by the 1st respondent's proceedings bearing Na.Ka.A/Geology and Mining /1021/2010, dated 23.10.2012.

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the 2nd respondent's proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.A- 2/4481/10 dated 26.08.2010 as confirmed by the 1st respondent's proceedings bearing Na.Ka.A/Geology and Mining /1019/2010, dated 23.10.2012.)

Common Order

1. The issue involved in both these Writ Petitions are common and hence, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this Common Order.

2. The petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 26.8.2010 and which was confirmed in Appeal by the 1st respondent through Orders dated 14.11.2012 and 23.10.2012 respectively.

3. The case of the petitioners is that they are agriculturists and while so, a show cause notice came to be issued by the 2nd respondent to the effect that an inspection was conducted in the subject quarry and it was noticed that 2000 units of rough stones and 8 units of 1 ½ size jelly were mined and kept in the subject property illegally by the petitioners and the same was seized and handed over to the V.A.O. for safe custody. On receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioners gave a detailed reply, denying all the allegations and they took a stand that they never indulged in any stone quarrying business and the subject property was actually given on lease for a period of 10 years from the year 1996 and the lessees had conducted mining operations during this period and whatever minerals were recovered from the site was leftover by the lessees and the petitioners have nothing to do with the same.

4. The further case of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent, after receipt of the reply and without conducting any enquiry, rejected the explanation given by the petitioners and demanded payment of a sum of Rs.17,02,500/- and Rs.24,11,250/- respectively from the petitioners.

5. The petitioners aggrieved by the same, filed an appeal before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent, once again, without conducting any enquiry, confirmed the Order passed by the 2nd respondent in a mechanical manner. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petitions have been filed before this Court.

6. Heard Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions and Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents in both writ petitions.

7. The main ground that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the show cause notice that was issued by the 2nd respondent itself was a pre-judged notice and for the mining that was done by some third parties for a period of 10 years, penalty was imposed against the petitioners even without conducting an enquiry. Hence, the impugned proceedings of the respondent is challenged mainly on the ground of violation of Principles of natural justice.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners in order to substantiate his submissions, relied upon the following judgments:

a) [Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others] reported in (2006) 12 SCC 33.

b) [V.S.O. Balakrishnan and Another v. District Collector,Thiruvallur and Another] reported in (2009) 2 MLJ 577.

c) [Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India and Others] reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427.

9. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the relevant rules does not contemplate personal enquiry and it is enough if an opportunity is given to the petitioners and the same is considered at the time of passing the orders. The learned counsel further sub