SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12754

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J
P. Gunasekhar Naidu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 7797 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G N Uma Rani
For the Respondents: 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.

Table of Content
1. factual background involving challenge to a demand notice in mining lease issues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. assessment of administrative failure to provide inspection documents during show cause proceedings. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. application of principles of natural justice in administrative decision-making. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. directions issued to set aside demand notice and follow due process of natural justice. (Para 19)

WRIT PETITION NO: 7797 OF 2026

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

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 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

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 suspend the Demand Notice NO.9099/Q2/2011 dated 25.02.2026 (Received on 09.03.2026) by the District Mines and Geology Officer. Chittoor, pending disposal of the writ petition

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

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 3rd respondent to issue dispatch permits, pending disposal of the writ petition

The Court made the following order:

ORDER:

1. 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 3rd 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top