Judgment : 1. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside demand notice No.704/Vg/2013-1, dated 05.09.2013, of respondent No.1, whereby he has levied a sum of Rs.93,64,668/-comprising Rs.15,60,778/- towards normal seigniorage fee and Rs.78,03,890/- towards five times the normal seigniorage fee as penalty. 2. I have heard Mr. Pannala Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology. 3. The petitioner has set up a stone crusher unit at Vankayalapadu Village, Edlapadu Mandal, Guntur District. It is involved in the activity of collecting the mineral, such as boulders of stone, from various quarry lessees and converting the same into metal crushing process. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the mineral collected by it from quarry lessees suffers seiniorage fee. 4. On 04.01.2013, the officials of the Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Office have inspected the petitioner’s unit and noticed 2,146.20 cubic metres of metal lying at the unit. After the said inspection, a notice was issued by the Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officer of Guntur on 28.01.2013 seeking information from the petitioner calling upon it to produce the documentary evidence regarding the payment of seigniorage fee for metal aggregates stack and disposal as on 04.01.2013. The petitioner pleaded that it has replied to the said notice on 04.02.2013 requesting to grant 10 days’ time to it. Subsequently, the Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officer of Guntur issued a final notice on 06.02.2013 to the petitioner. On 12.02.2013, the petitioner gave a reply giving details of the mineral collected and used by it and also requesting the Officer to return the papers and registers seized/taken from the crusher at the time of inspection. Thereafter, based on the Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officer’s letter dated 15.07.2013, respondent No.1 has issued show-cause notice dated 18.07.2013 to the petitioner. After seeking time for submitting its reply, the petitioner has given a detailed reply on 29.08.2013. After receipt of the said reply, respondent No.1 has issued the impugned demand notice. 5. The main ground of attack of the impugned notice is that it is bereft of any reasons whatsoever. The petitioner specifically pleaded that in its reply, it has categorically asserted that the entire mineral used by it suffered seigniorage fee and that it has enclosed the documentary evidence in support thereof. 5. The main ground of attack of the impugned notice is that it is bereft of any reasons whatsoever. The petitioner specifically pleaded that in its reply, it has categorically asserted that the entire mineral used by it suffered seigniorage fee and that it has enclosed the documentary evidence in support thereof. It is the further case of the petitioner that it has undertaken that if the respondents return to the unit the registers and documents seized by them, it will account for all the business transactions carried on between 01.04.2012 and 31.12.2012. 6. A perusal of the demand notice would show that it has referred to report, dated 15.07.2013, of the Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officer, Guntur and show cause notice, dated 18.07.2013, issued by respondent No.1. While there is not even a reference to the petitioner’s explanation in the reference column, in one sentence, respondent No.1 has stated “The M/s. Baba Stone Crusher has submitted reply to the show cause notice, but not satisfied.” No further discussion on the petitioner’s explanation and its contents has been made by respondent No.1 and he has straight away directed the petitioner to pay the above-mentioned amounts. 7. The Constitutional Courts time and again emphasized on the need for the public authorities discharging administrative and quasi-judicial functions to give reasons in support of their conclusions wherever orders passed by them result in adverse consequences to the citizens. It is firmly established by the long line of judgments that giving reasons is an important facet of principles of natural justice, as they constitute heart and soul of the decision and absence of reasons vitiates the very order itself. [see: Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd., vs. Union of India( AIR 1966 SC 671 ) G. Vallikumari vs. Andhra Education Society (2010) 2 SCC 497 , Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity (2010) 3 SCC 732 ) and Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla and Brothers (2010) 4 SCC 785 ). 8. Learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology fairly conceded that the impugned proceeding does not contain any reasons whatsoever. 9. Having regard to the settled legal principle discussed above and the fact that the impugned demand notice is unsupported by any reasons, the same cannot be sustained in law. 10. Accordingly, the impugned demand notice is quashed. 8. Learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology fairly conceded that the impugned proceeding does not contain any reasons whatsoever. 9. Having regard to the settled legal principle discussed above and the fact that the impugned demand notice is unsupported by any reasons, the same cannot be sustained in law. 10. Accordingly, the impugned demand notice is quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to furnish the copies of the records seized from the petitioner to enable it to give a proper reply. Within two weeks from the date of furnishing of copies of records seized from the petitioner to it, it shall submit its detailed explanation to the show cause notice. After considering the explanation, respondent No.1 shall take appropriate decision. He shall also give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before such decision is taken. In the event respondent No.1 proposes to levy the seigniorage charges and penalty, he shall consider the explanation given by the petitioner and give detailed reasons for not accepting the explanation. 11. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel, WPMP.No.33379 of 2013, filed for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.