Failure to supply essential documents for a demand notice constitutes a violation of natural justice, necessitating reconsideration of the petitioner’s explanations.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“...to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Impugned Demand Notice bearing No.5266/Q/2015 dated 25.08.2025 issued by the 3^rd respondent is illegal high handed capricious violate Articles 14, 19(1), 21 and in violation of the guarantee under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from being in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play and consequently direct the respondents to set aside the demand notice dated 25.08.2025 while directing the authorities to consider the two representations made by the petitioner on 17.09.2025 and pass fresh demand notice and pass...”

2. Heard Mr. Y.Srinivasa Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M.V.B.S.Narasimha Anudeep, learned counsel for the petitioner on record and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines & Geology appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 4 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.5.

3. The facts of the case in brief as stated are that the petitioner was granted quarry lease for building stone and road metal over an extent of Ac.2-00 guntas in Survey No.85/1 of Mallemandugu Village, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District for a period of 10 years commencing from 16.10.2007 vide proceedings No.512/Q3/2010, dated 01.06.2010 issued by respondent No.4. Pursuant thereto, a work order was issued vide proceedings No.512/Q3/2010, dated 01.06.2010 for commencement of quarry for the period commencing from 16.10.2007 to 15.10.2017. The respondent No.2 vide memo No.2344915/Vg/2024, dated 27.01.2024 instructed respondent No.4 to undertake inspections of quarry leases pertaining to granite and other minor minerals, including stone and metal, limestone slabs, gravel, etc., and to initiate appropriate action against leaseholders, who are found to be in violating the rules. Pursuant to the aforesaid instructions, the respondent No.4 issued directions under Memo No.265/Vigilance/2024, dated 27.01.2024, pursuant to which M/s. Geo Tech Surveys conducted an ETS survey on the petitioner’s quarry on 30.01.2024 and prepared a draft ETS map dated 17.02.2024. Placing reliance on the said draft ETS map, the respondent authorities issued a Show Cause Notice bearing No.5266/Q/2015, dated 17.02.2024 alleging the petitioner had excavated and transported 3,95,464 metric tons of mineral in violation of Rule 26(2) of the Rules, without supplying a copy of the ETS survey map, on which the allegations are found. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted explanation on 01.03.2024 before respondent No.3. Without considering the petitioner’s explanation, the respondent authorities issued another Show Cause Notice bearing No.5266/Q/2015, dated 24.02.2024 on the very same set of allegations as contained in the earlier notice. Pursuant to the 2^nd show cause notice, the petitioner submitted explanation on 04.03.2024. Without considering the explanations submitted by the petitioner to the 2^nd Show Cause Notice, the respondent authorities issued the demand notice bearing No.5266/Q/2015, dated 12.03.2024 directing the petitioner as follows:

"to pay penalty of Rs. 69,02,97,855/- (Rs.7,60,63,455/- normal seigniorage fee+ Rs.61,42,34,400/- 5/10 times penalty) for the quantity of 450462 MTs of Stone and Metal excavated more than the permitted