The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper consideration and compliance with principles of natural justice in issuing orders related to quarry leases and demand notices.

ORDER :

Heard Smt. N. Shobha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing on behalf of Respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in Memo.No.2305/M.I(2)/2016, dated 03.01.2023 and the consequential Demand Notice issued by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology in Demand Notice No.3421/QL/2004, dated 25.01.2023 and the orders of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology Demand Notice No.3421/QL/2004, dated 19.02.2015 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unconstitutional and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice, Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and T.S. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and consequently call for records in Proc. No.3421/QL/2004, dated 19.02.2015 confirmed in Memo.No.2305/M.I (2)/2015-6, dated 03.01.2023, consequential Demand Notice No.3421/QL/2004, dated 25.01.2023.

3. The case of the Petitioner as per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition is as under:

a) The petitioner is the owner and possessor of patta land over an extent of Ac.2.29 gts in Sy.No.65/H of Ogipur Village, Tandur Mandal, Vikarabad District. As the area was rocky and consisting of lime stone deposits useful for lime stone slabs, the petitioner submitted application for grant of quarry lease on 24.11.2004. After obtaining necessary NOC from the MRO, quarry lease was granted by the 3rd Respondent for an extent of Ac.2.00 in proceedings No.8885/Q-1(2)/2007, dated 11.07.2007 and Lease Deed was executed for (10) years and work orders are issued by the 4th Respondent in proceedings No.3421/Q/2004, dated 03.08.2007.

b) The petitioner has been conducting quarrying operations strictly in conformity with the conditions of grant, however, the neighbouring land owner who is also granted quarry lease, had been interfering with the quarrying operations, and had filed suit against him for injunction and injunction was granted. Likewise, Mr. Venkat Ram Reddy also had filed suit. Having lost in the litigation, Venkat Ram Reddy had wrongly represented that illegal quarrying is done in petitioner quarry lease area, therefore, requested for demarcation of the quarry lease area falling in Sy.No.65.

c) While that being so, the petitioner received show cause notice dated 27.6.2012, calling upon the petitioner to submit petitioner’s explanation as to why action cannot be initiated against the petitioner for collection of normal seigniorage fee along with (10) times penalty and petitioner submitted explanation dated 26.07.2012 to the said show cause notice dated 27.06.2012.

d) Without considering the explanation furnished in detail by the petitioner, the 4th Respondent has issued Demand Notice No.3421/Q/04, dated 05.09.2012 merely stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory. As against which, the petitioner has preferred Revision to the 1st Respondent and the same was heard on 04.04.2013, where it ordered for re-survey of the leased area by the 4th respondent for fixing boundaries and furnishing report for taking further necessary action in Memo No. 15556/M.II(1)/2012-5, dated 31.05.2013.

e) Thereafter, the 2nd respondent called for report in terms of the Government Order in Memo No.47754/R7-1/2012, dated 14.06.2013. The 4th respondent requested the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records for re-survey of the quarry lease area. Accordingly, it was recommended and a report was submitted on 09.10.2013 and survey number is demarcated wherein the area arrived after measuring is Ac.1.19 gts instead of 2 acres as granted in proceedings dated 03.08.2007.

f) Thus, there is a difference of 0-21 gts which is falling short. On receipt of the report, the 2nd Respondent called for a further report by its proceedings dated 0