Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(AP) 1175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J.
P.Gunasekhar Naidu, S/o Late P. Ramanaidu – Petitioner
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce (Mines II) Department – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 7797 OF 2026
Decided On : 31-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: G N Uma Rani
For the Respondent: Gp For Industries Commerce

An administrative order affecting a party's rights or property is void if issued without supplying the documents relied upon in the show cause notice, as it violates the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair opportunity of defense.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Natural Justice - Demand Notice - Petitioner challenged demand notice Issued without providing inspection reports and documents required to file an explanation to a show cause notice - Court held that administrative authorities affecting civil consequences must comply with principles of natural justice by furnishing relied-upon documents - Decision reached without observing these principles is procedurally unfair and liable to be set aside - Court directed respondent to furnish documents and allowed petitioner to file a fresh explanation. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was granted a quarry lease for Colour Granite Black for twenty years. A show cause notice alleging violation of lease conditions was issued based on a vigilance inspection report. The petitioner requested copies of the inspection report and survey findings to enable a proper reply. Without providing the requested documents, the respondent issued a demand notice. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this notice as arbitrary and in violation of natural justice.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the issuance of the demand notice without providing the requested documents underlying the vigilance report constituted a clear transgression of the principles of natural justice and rendered the impugned order procedurally unfair.

Issues: Whether the demand notice is legally sustainable when issued without providing documents requested by the petitioner to explain the allegations in the show cause notice.

Ratio Decidendi: Principles of natural justice demand that when an authority initiates action affecting an individual's rights, it must furnish the documents relied upon and provide an adequate opportunity to defend; failure to do so vitiates the decision.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

ORDER :

MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J.

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

“to issue a writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Demand Notice No. vide. NO.9099/Q2/2011 dated 25.02.2026 (received on 09.03.2026) by the District Mines and Geology Officer, Chittoor, and without considering the request made by the petitioner for providing necessary documents for giving proper reply as arbitrary, predetermined, bad in law, illegal, unjust, against principles of natural Justice and unconstitutional and contrary to the AP Minor Mineral Rules 1966 and The Mines And Minerals (development and Regulations) Act 1957 and to set aside the same”

2. Heard Ms.G.N.Umarani, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Ms.G.N.Umarani, submits that the 2^nd respondent mining authority granted quarry lease for Colour Granite Black over an extent of 1.000 hectors in Sy.No.245 of Katikapalli Village, S.R.Puram Mandal, Chittoor District, in favour of the petitioner for a period of 20 years, vide proceedings No.3091/R5-1/2012 dated 29.07.2013.

4. According to the learned counsel, in furtherance of 2^nd respondent’s proceedings, the concerned Assistant Director of Mines and Geology also executed quarry lease deed, dated 28.10.2013 and also issued work order vide proceedings No.9099/Q2/2011 dated 28.10.2013 for the period commencing from 28.10.2013 to 27.10.2033. In terms of the same, the petitioner is conducting mining operations as per law.

5. The learned counsel further states that thereafter, the 3^rd respondent issued a show cause notice vide No.9099/Q2/2011 dated 08.01.2026 (according to the petitioner, the said show cause notice was received by him on 30.01.2026). The learned counsel further elaborates that the said show cause notice mainly based upon the survey and inspection conducted by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Tirupathi along with other officials. In the said show cause notice, the 3^rd respondent alleged violation of lease conditions as well as statutory realm by the petitioner. She further contends that after receiving the show cause notice, the petitioner preferred a written representation dated 10.02.2026 to the 3^rd respondent seeking to provide the relevant reports and documents so as to give an effective explanation to the said show cause notice.

6. The learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to Ex.P2 written representation of the petitioner dated 10.02.2026 addressed to the 3^rd Respondent.

7. According to the learned counsel, the 3^rd respondent without taking into consideration of the petitioner’s written representation dated 10.02.2026 seeking to provide documents, unilaterally and arbitrarily issued the impugned demand notice dated 25.02.2026. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly pointed out the impugned demand notice is hit by principles of natural justice.

8. Conversely, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology states that granting as well as executing of lease deed and work order in favour of the petitioner is not in dispute. However, she contends that as the petitioner violated the statutory provisions of APMMC Rules 1966, the acts of the petitioner are detrimental to the public exchequer, hence, as per the procedure invoked, the concerned mining authorities rightly issued show cause notice, followed by demand notice. She further submits that the impugned order is appealable, hence the very initiation of writ petition before this court by invoking Article 226 of Constitution of India itself is not maintainable.

9. This Court consciously heard the rival submissions made by both the counsel and also perused the material on record, which reveals that indisputably petitioner was granted lease for a period of 20 years, commencing from 28.10.2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(AP) 1175

An administrative order affecting a party's rights or property is void if issued without supplying the documents relied upon in the show cause notice, as it violates the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair opportunity of defense.

Cases Referred (2)