P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed for a Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction after calling for the records from the respondents relating to the Demand notice issued by the 3rd respondent in his ref. No. 933/q1/80, dated 16-6-1989 as confirmed by the 2nd respondent in his proc. No. 24019/s1/89, dated 24-4-1990 as well as the demand raised by the 4th respondent vide his Lr. No. 1025/q/80, dated 5-5-1993 which were later confirmed by the 1st respondent vide his Memo no. 1922/m-II (l)/93-ll, dated 11-3-1996 and to quash the same by passing appropriate orders. ( 2 ) THE case of the writ petitioner in brief is that the petitioner was granted a quarry lease in his patta land to an extent of Ac. 2-00 in Sy. No. 841/b-2 for a period of five years in the month of April, 1980 and ever since he was conducting quarrying operations for a period of five years and subsequently basing on the interim orders passed by this Court. It is further stated that the petitioner transported the mineral extracted from leased area by obtaining necessary dispatch permits without any complaint whatsoever. ( 3 ) WHILE so, the Joint Director of Mines and Geology, who was holding the additional charge of the office of Deputy director of Mines and Geology, Guntur issued a demand notice in his Ref. No. 933/ ql/80, dated 16-6-1989 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,87,474-05 ps. within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Several other details relating to the same also had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It was further specifically pleaded that the 3rd respondent had issued the above demand notice invoking the powers vested in him under Rule 26 of the a. P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the "rules" in short ). It was also stated that inasmuch as under the said Rule, the petitioner will be visited with the penal consequences, it is essential that an opportunity should have been given and that there was no notice and that there was no opportunity to the petitioner in this regard to explain his stand. It was also stated that inasmuch as under the said Rule, the petitioner will be visited with the penal consequences, it is essential that an opportunity should have been given and that there was no notice and that there was no opportunity to the petitioner in this regard to explain his stand. ( 4 ) IN para-4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition several other factual details had been narrated. It is also further stated that aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent and the said petition was rejected by proceedings no. 24019/s1/89, dated 24-4-1990 and the said order also is not a speaking order. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the 1st respondent under 35-A of the Rules. It was further stated that during the pendency of the revision petition the 4th respondent in his letter No. 1025/q/80, dated 5-5-1993 had specified that a quantity of 14,628-000 metric Tonnes of Lime Stone was dispatched by the petitioner against the permitted quantity of 5,525 Metric Tonnes during the period commencing from 1-2-1986 to 29-5-1987 and after narrating several other details the 2nd respondent made revised demand for the very same period directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,58,212=70 ps. It was further pleaded that this issuance of two demand notices for the same period itself shows that there was total non-application of mind in this regard. The filing of contempt case in C. C. No. 573 of 1988 and certain other details also had been narrated in paras 7 to 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. ( 5 ) RESPONDENTS 3 and 4 filed a counter- affidavit in detail. After narrating all the details it was specifically stated that during the personal hearing before the Director of mines and Geology the petitioner had accepted that he transported excess quantity of Limestone and agreed to pay normal seigniorage fee along with taxes. In paras 3 to 11 of the counter-affidavit several other details had been narrated and certain writ petitions filed had been referred to and it was also stated that the petitioner has been carrying on mining operations by obtaining interim directions even without a valid lease in W. P. No. 5458 of 1990. In paras 3 to 11 of the counter-affidavit several other details had been narrated and certain writ petitions filed had been referred to and it was also stated that the petitioner has been carrying on mining operations by obtaining interim directions even without a valid lease in W. P. No. 5458 of 1990. It was also specifically stated that the petitioner had questioned the revised demand issued by the 4th respondent on 5-5-1993 in W. P. No. 6654 of 1996 and the same was dismissed. ( 6 ) ON the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties and the other material produced, elaborate arguments have been advanced by both sides - sri M. Chandra Sekhara Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioner and sri Shaik Anwar, learned Assistant government Pleader for Industries and commerce. ( 7 ) SRI M. Chandra Sekhara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the original demand dated 16-6-1989 made by the 3rd respondent itself was without issuing any notice or affording an opportunity and on this ground alone the said proceedings are liable to be quashed. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the language employed in rule 26 of the Rules and the learned counsel also further would maintain that even if some opportunity was given at the appellate stage or revisional stage it may not cure the initial defect in the original demand and hence the stand taken by the respondents that there was some opportunity given or the petitioner made certain admissions in this regard, may not be of any consequence. The learned counsel had placed strong reliance in Siva Stone Crusher v. Regional vigilance and Enforcement Officer; in U. P. State v. Mohd. Noon; in Institute of Chartered accountants of India v. L. K. Ratna; and in whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the two different demand notices and commented that unfortunately the petitioner is being harassed only because of the reason that the petitioner had initiated the contempt proceedings. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to memo dated 11-3-1996 and had pointed out that in view of the last portion of the order it is clear that a further enquiry must be necessary in this regard. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to memo dated 11-3-1996 and had pointed out that in view of the last portion of the order it is clear that a further enquiry must be necessary in this regard. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the contents of the affidavit filed in W. P. No. 6654 of 1993 and had contended that the order made therein was only ex parte order without hearing the learned counsel at the relevant point of time and the facts were not brought to the notice of the court and at any rate the said order may not be of any consequence in the light of the subsequent order passed in detail on 11-3-1996 by the 1st respondent. ( 9 ) ON the contrary Sri Shaik Anwar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for industries and Commerce had taken me through the chronological events which had ultimately resulted in an order being passed at the revisional stage and the situation in which a demand notice and a revised demand notice had been issued and several other factual aspects including the demands made by the petitioner before the concerned director of Mines and Geology in this regard. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the order made in the revision and the details of which had been narrated therein. It was also pointed out that w. P. No. 6654 of 1993 questioning the revised demand notice dated 5-5-1993 in fact was dismissed and the said order became final and hence to that extent the question cannot be reagitated and the present writ petition so far as it relates to that portion of the relief is concerned, is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. It was also further contended that where an order was passed by a competent court, the order which is available on record alone should be looked into and the aspects which have been canvassed by the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration since the court proceedings or the court record should be read as it is, and extraneous aspects are impermissible. Ultimately it was contended that when orders had been passed by the court even on principle of comity the order already passed in W. P. No. 6654 of 1993 should be given due regard and the same cannnot be ignored by mere fact that subsequent thereto the order was made by the 1st respondent, Government in the revision. ( 10 ) HEARD the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record. ( 11 ) IT is no doubt true that both the learned Counsel had taken me through respective pleadings and several factual aspects also have been pointed out to substantiate their contentions. In W. P. No. 6654 of 1993, as can be seen from the relief prayed for the impugned proceedings are dated 5-5-1993 and this court by order dated 15-6-1993 had made the following order:"heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for Industries. The impugned order shows that as per the directions of this Court in W. P. M. P. No. 10913/90 when the petitioner was requested to furnish the information, he has not furnished the full information. It is further stated that as per the Mineral revenue Assessment by the respondent the petitioner is in arrears of Rs. 18,278. 00 (Rupees eighteen thousand two hundred and seventy eight only) for the period ending 31-3-1993 in additional to the arrears of rs. 2,58,212-70 ps (Rupees two lakhs fifty eight thousand two hundred and twelve and seventy paise only) towards unauthorized transportation of lime stone from petitioner s quarry. Under these circumstances, I hold that the impugned notice dated 5-5-1993 demanding the Mineral revenue arrears from the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction, the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed at the stage of admission. " ( 12 ) IT is not in dispute that this order became final. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner in fact never wanted to question these proceedings, and it is only an ex parte order. " ( 12 ) IT is not in dispute that this order became final. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner in fact never wanted to question these proceedings, and it is only an ex parte order. This is an order passed by this court and the orders as it reads on the face of it alone can be looked into and the other circumstances which have been explained now by the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration to understand whether the order in fact was made so, and since the said order became final, it is needless to say that I am bound to follow the said order and also on principle of comity too, and this court cannot pass any conflicting order to the one already made as far as the said demand notice dated 5-5-1993 is concerned. In this view of the matter the relief prayed for in the present writ petition questioning the demand by the 4th respondent in proceedings dated 5-5-1993, whatever may be the grounds, which are urged, cannot be considered since the same is barred by the principles of resjudicata and also doctrine of comity. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain any of such contentions, which are extraneous to the Court record in this regard, ( 13 ) NOW coming to the next question whether the original demand made on 16-6-1989 which had been confirmed in the appeal and in the revision so far as it relates to the rest of the amount, since there is some difference between these two demand notices, can be taken into consideration and decided in the present writ petition, it was seriously urged that the main proceedings dated 16-6-1989 was made without affording an opportunity and without issuing notice and there is no serious dispute on this question. In fact Rule 26 of the Rules reads as follows:"26. Refusal of application for grant and renewal of mining lease: (1) The State Government may, after giving an opportunity of being heard and for reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant, refuse to grant or renew a mining lease over the whole or part of the area applied for. Refusal of application for grant and renewal of mining lease: (1) The State Government may, after giving an opportunity of being heard and for reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant, refuse to grant or renew a mining lease over the whole or part of the area applied for. (2) An application for the grant or renewal of a mining lease made under Rule 22 or Rule 24-A,, as the case may be, shall not be refused by the State Government only on the ground that Form I or Form J, as the case may be, is not complete in all material particulars, or is not accompanied by the documents referred to in sub-clauses (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of clause (i) of sub- rule (3) of Rule 22. (3) Where it appears that the application is not complete in all material particulars or is not accompanied by the required documents, the State Government shall by notice, require the applicant to supply the omission or, as the case may be, furnish the document , without delay and in any case not later than sixty days from the date of receipt of the said notice by the applicant. ( 14 ) IN Siva Stone Crushers case (supra) this court while deciding similar question had arrived at a conclusion that opportunity should be given to the petitioner to produce documents etc. and substantiate his stand while imposing any penalty in pursuance of the terms of Rule 26 of the Rules. Strong reliance was placed on U. P. State v. Mohd. Noon; Institute of Chartered Accountants of india v. L. K. Ratna; and in Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks to the effect that when no opportunity was afforded while making the original order and the mere fact that at the appellate stage or revisional stage opportunity had been given, will not cure the defect. ( 15 ) THERE is no serious controversy that no notice or opportunity had been given while issuing demand notice by the 3rd respondent in the proceedings dt. 16-6-1989. But, however, the second demand was raised by the 4th respondent by his letter dated 5-5-1993 for a lesser amount and the same had been questioned by the writ petitioner unsuccessfully which had been referred to supra. 16-6-1989. But, however, the second demand was raised by the 4th respondent by his letter dated 5-5-1993 for a lesser amount and the same had been questioned by the writ petitioner unsuccessfully which had been referred to supra. It is no doubt true that the government while disposing of the revision on 11-3-1996 in the last para had stated as follows:"consequently the revision petition is rejected. The exact quantum of penalty payable by the petitioner shall be as determined by the Director of Mines and Geology in view of two demand notices issued. He should determine the seigniorage and penalty payable, duly keeping in view the rates of seigniorage applicable for different periods of time. " ( 16 ) HOWEVER, it is pertinent to note that as far as the subsequent demand notice is concerned the writ petitioner in W. P. No. 6654 of 1993 had questioned the same unsuccessfully. ( 17 ) IN the counter affidavit filed it is stated that the petitioner had filed series of writ petitions and carrying on the operations in the guise of interim directions and it is also stated that in W. P. No. 5458 of 1990, dated 14-6-1993 while disposing of the writ petition with costs, this court had observed about the illegal mining by the petitioner without any lease. It is also stated that there is personal hearing given to the petitioner, the petitioner had accepted that he transported excess quantity of limestone and agreed to pay normal seigniorage fee along with taxes and that there was no arithmetical mistakes in the demand raised but for the seigniorage fee charged at the rate of Rs. 10. 00 for a quantity at 2314 M. T. of limestone dispatched by him as against rs. 5/ -. But, however, this has nothing to do as the petitioner confessed the offence of dispatching the excess quantity of limestone than the permitted quantity, which attracts the penal provision under Rule 26 (1) and (2) of the Rules. It is further stated that the demand notice dated 16-6-1989 was for an amount of Rs. 3,87,474-05 ps. and the said demand notice was issued based on the findings of the Vigilance and Enforcement and the officials of the Department during the raid conducted on 9-5-1988. It is further stated that the demand notice dated 16-6-1989 was for an amount of Rs. 3,87,474-05 ps. and the said demand notice was issued based on the findings of the Vigilance and Enforcement and the officials of the Department during the raid conducted on 9-5-1988. It was also stated that the 3rd respondent categorically informed the petitioner in the demand notice dated 16-6-1989 that in the raids conducted on 9-5-1988 at Piduguralla village and Mandal, six kiln owners had produced the way bills issued by the petitioner and it was found that each way bill was issued for 10. 5 M. T. of limestone as against 4 M. T. of limestone obtained by him from the 4th respondent and that it was clear violation of rules and there was no need for the 3rd respondent to do independent enquiry once categorical authenticated report was submitted by the 4th respondent. In the counter several other details as to when the interim orders were obtained from this court and how the petitioner had continued his illegal operations also had been narrated. It was also stated that in the appeal, personal hearing was given and during the hearing the petitioner conceded that he transported excess quantity of limestone and agreed to pay normal seigniorage fee along with taxes and that the petitioner had pleaded for waiver of penalty and hence an opportunity was given to the petitioner. But, however, the fact remains that as per the original demand dated 16-6-1989 is concerned there was no notice and there was no opportunity given to the petitioner. The mere fact that at the appellate stage or at the revisional stage opportunity had been given will not cure the defect. However, a peculiar anomalous situation arose in the present case in view of the fact that the subsequent revised demand was made for a portion of this amount and in fact the writ petition was filed which this court ultimately dismissed. Hence the impugned original demand notice dated 16-6-1989 can be said to be bad on this ground only so far as it relates to the rest of the amount. Hence the impugned original demand notice dated 16-6-1989 can be said to be bad on this ground only so far as it relates to the rest of the amount. ( 18 ) IN the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and since the 3rd respondent is the competent authority to take a decision relating to the rest of the amount covered by the demand notice dated 16-6-1989, the writ petitioner is bound to succeed only to that extent and accordingly the demand notice issued by the 3rd respondent in demand notice No. 933/ q/80, dated 16-6-1989 is partly quashed to the extent of the rest of the amount as demanded therein duly deducting the amount in the revised demand dated 5-5-1993 which in fact was already upheld by this court and accordingly the impugned proceedings dated 16-6-1989 is quashed to the extent indicated above and the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent to go into the aspect of the matter and take a decision in this regard as expeditiously as possible after affording appropriate opportunity to the petitioner to explain his stand in this regard. ( 19 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed in part as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.