Challenge to the legality and jurisdiction of a demand notice issued by mining authorities during the subsistence of a quarry lease.

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the Demand Notice issued by Respondent No.3 on 24.12.2020 Vide No. 4556/Q2/C.G/2011 calling upon the petitioner to pay the penalty, double the market value and fine of Rs.5.00 lakhs as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14, 19 and 300-A of Constitution of India r/w provisions of the A.P. Mines Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and consequently set aside the same and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Demand Notice issued by Respondent No.3 on 24.12.2020 Vide No. 4556/Q2/C.G/2011 pending WP and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to give necessary work order and permit periodically pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass

The Court made the following order:

ORDER:

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer:

“to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the Demand Notice issued by Respondent No.3 on 24.12.2020 Vide No. 4556/Q2/C.G/2011 calling upon the petitioner to pay the penalty, double the market value and fine of Rs.5.00 lakhs as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14, 19 and 300-A of Constitution of India r/w provisions of the A.P. Mines Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and consequently set aside the same and pass…..”

2. Heard Ms.Shaik Neha Hassan, advocate representing Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for the respondents and also perused the material placed by the respective parties in the lis.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, namely H.Imam Sab, was granted quarry lease for colour granite over an extent of 0.682 hectors in Sy.No.3-1 of Jadarhalli village, Madakasira Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, on 02.08.2012 for a period of 20 years vide proceedings No.4556/Q2/CG/2011, dated 02.08.2012 issued by the 3rd respondent. Later the lease deed was executed by the petitioner before the concerned authority. Accordingly lease period is up to the year 2032. Thereafter, the petitioner was prevented from his quarry operations by the respondent authorities.

4. In that way initially on 17.02.2018 a show cause notice was issued by the 3rd respondent, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation. Without considering the same, authorities passed demand notice dated 18.08.2018. The same was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.No.34031 of 2018 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. Later on, this Court set aside the demand notice dated 18.08.2018 vide its order dated 25.09.2018 in W.P.No.34031 of 2018 by leaving it open to the authorities to pass fresh orders.

5. The learned counsel further submits that again 3rd respondent passed un-reasoned demand orders by rejecting the petitioner’s request. Hence, the petitioner filed another writ petition No.6188 of 2019 seeking re-survey of leased area. In the said W.P.No.6188 of

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this Court in the present writ petition initially granted interim orders on 20.03.2021 by directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps and the same was extended from time to time. Learned counsel further asserts that, in