The principles of natural justice necessitate that individuals be given an opportunity to be heard before adverse decisions are made against them, particularly in administrative actions affecting rights.

ORDER

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

“…..to issue an order writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order in Memo No 10533/M I1/20143 dated 23.04.2016 of the 1^st respondent for illegal arbitrary violative of principles of natural justice violative of the provisions of the AP Mines and Mineral Development and Regulation Act 1957 and Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966 and consequently set aside the order passed in Memo No 10533/M l1/20143 dated 23.04.2016 and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to effectuate the lease and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and pass....”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was granted a quarry Lease for Colour Granite over an extent of 1.82 hectares in Sy.No.306 of Mukteswaram Village, Ballikurava Mandal, Prakasm District and a lease deed was executed with the 1" respondent on 26.08.2010 for a period of 20 years. Thereafter, it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent has proposed to the 2^ndrespondent by communication Letter No.2473/Q/2005, dated 20.07.2012 for determination of quarry lease held by the petitioner. Accordingly, the 2^ndrespondent has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner by communication SCN No.36725/R3-1/2012 dated 05.12.2012 as to why action should not be taken for determination of the lease of subject area. It is further stated that, even though there is specific mention in the communication dated 2.07.2014, that the show cause notice dated 5.12.2012 was acknowledged by the petitioner, no such notice was ever issued by the 2nd respondent. It was also averred in the show cause notice, that the petitioner is liable to pay the mineral dues to the Government. It is also stated that whenever minerals dues is to be paid by a party, the respondents shall call upon the party to pay the same. The lease deed dated 26.08.2010 also specifies that where the dues are payable the respondents will formally demand for payment. The respondents too never issued any notice regarding payment of mineral dues. After thorough enquires of the petitioner, he could obtain the above said communications of the respondents and the alleged show cause notice and filed a revision against the order of the 2nd respondent in SCN No.36725/R3-1/2012 dated 05.12.2012 before the first respondent under Rule 35-A of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 . Later, the first respondent passed orders in Revision application in Memo No.10533/M.I(1)/2014-3 dated 23.04.2016, confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent but on a different ground stating that the Government has taken a policy decision to cancel all the non-working leases in the State. The 1st respondent before passing any order basing on the policy decision of the Government, it would have given an opportunity to argue and ought to have served a copy on him. Without serving a copy of the policy decision that was taken by the Government on the petitioner, passing orders against him is against principles of natural justice. As there is slump in the Granite market, the petitioner was not able to commence mining operations. It is stated that the said Memo No.10533/M.I(1)/2014-3 dated 23.04.2016 made to understand that the 1st respondent has called for remarks from the 2^ndrespondent and has taken a decision to determine the lease of the petitioner. The 1st respondent while passing orders shall independently take a decision calling and shall not call for any reports from its sub-ordinate authorities, that too from the original authority which determined the lease. The 1st respondent also stated that the petitioner holds the leased area for the last five years without granting any lease to the interested parties in quarrying under the guise of grant of lease in favour of