A quasi-judicial authority exercising revisional jurisdiction is mandated to pass a reasoned, speaking order addressing the merits of the case, and failure to provide specific reasons for rejecting a request for condonation of delay renders the order arbitrary and violative of natural justice.

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No

May be allowed to see the judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No

to Law Reporters/Journals:

3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No

Of the Judgment?

GIST :

HEAD NOTE :

Cases referred :

1) (2010) 4 SCC 785

2) 2019 SCC OnLine AP 253

3) 2022 SCC OnLine AP 2452

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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order in letter No 20300/M.I(2)/2016-1 dated 19.1.2017 passed by the 1st respondent as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the order in letter No 20300/M.1(2)/2016-1 dated 19.1.2017 passed by the 1st respondent and pass

The Court made the following ORDER:

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

“……..declaring the order in letter No 20300/M.I(2)/2016-1 dated 19.1.2017 passed by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the order in letter No.20300/M.1(2)/2016-1 dated 19.1.2017 passed by the 1st respondent and pass…….”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the writ affidavit, submits that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.3.00cents in Sy.No.86 of Chebrolu Village, Gollaprolu Mandal, East Godavari District and to that effect, the petitioner has pattadar passbook and title deed in his name. He submits that respondent No.4 issued Show-Cause-Notice dated 19.10.2012, for which, the petitioner preferred explanation on 08.11.2012 and without considering the same, the petitioner got issued demand notice on 19.12.2012, followed by reminder notice dated 30.03.2013 by the 4th respondent.

4. He also submits that aggrieved by the said action of the 4th respondent, the petitioner preferred revision application by invoking Section 35-A of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (in short ‘Rules, 1966’) before the 1st respondent on 28.05.2013, the same was returned on 25.02.2014 and communicated to the petitioner by way of letter dated 09.07.2015 by the 4th respondent.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner again re-submitted his revision on 03.09.2016, with a delay of 1148 days, which was rejected vide orders dated 19.01.2017 by the 1st respondent on the sole ground of delay of 2 years 8 months and without assigning any reasons at all. Hence, the writ petition. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel relies on the judgment dated 23.03.2016 passed in W.P.No.9558 of 2016.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines & Geology submits that the petitioner is illegally doing mining operations on his land, as such, the respondent authorities, by following the prerequisite procedural steps, rightly issued demand notice. She further submits that the petitioner filed revision application, but with the abnormal delay, as such, the authorities, considering the ground realities, rejected the same.

7. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by both the counsel and perused