Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 295 (AP)

Veejee Mines And Minerals v. State Of A. P.

2021-04-30

D.RAMESH

body2021
ORDER : The cause of action in all the writ petitions are identical, challenging the notice issued by the Additional Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool District, they are being heard together and disposed of with the Common Order. W.P. No.8499 of 2020 2. This writ petition is filed assailing the order of the 4th respondent passed in Notice No.2223/M4-QTZ/2007 dated 24.04.2020 and to set aside the same. W.P. No.8496 of 2020 3. This writ petition is filed assailing the order of the 4th respondent passed in Notice No.5513/M4-QTZ/2000 dated 24.04.2020 and to set aside the same. W.P. No.8597of 2019 4. This writ petition is filed assailing the order of the 4th respondent passed in Notice No.3319/M4-QTZ/2012 dated 24.04.2020 and to set aside the same. 5. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, Sri Ravi Kondaveeti and Sri Lakshmi Kanth Reddy Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for the respondents. 6. Ever since the mining lease for Quartz, granted by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, all the petitioners are conducting mining operations without contravening any of the conditions of the mining lease as well as the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and the A.P. Minor and Mineral Concessions Rules. 7. While so, on 10.01.2017 basing on the adverse news item published in Eenadu news paper, under the caption “Dhone Lo Quartz Mafiya”, the quarry leased area of the petitioners were inspected by the staff of the Office of the 4th respondent/Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool and submitted the inspection report to the 4th respondent. Basing on the said report, the 4th respondent has issued show cause notices, dated 19.01.2017 to the petitioners, stating that there are certain discrepancies found in the Quartz mineral excavated with reference to dispatch permits obtained quantity and the same is in violation of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and asked the petitioners’ firms to submit reply within 15 days. 8. On receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioners submitted detailed explanations and also given details in respect of each of the working area and requested to drop further proceedings. 8. On receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioners submitted detailed explanations and also given details in respect of each of the working area and requested to drop further proceedings. Apart from that the petitioners also submitted additional explanations, wherein further details with regard to the quantity excavated in each of the assessment years of 2011-12, 2012-13 to 2016-17 and the number of permits obtained from the department every year. Considering the said reply, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, has issued show cause notices on 05.08.2017 to the petitioners, alleging that there is a variation in the quantity of the permits obtained by the petitioners. The petitioners have submitted detailed explanations to the said show cause notice, but without considering the same, the 5th respondent has issued a demand notice on 11.09.2017 and directed the petitioners to pay the market value of the mineral with fine. 9. As per the remedy under the statute, the petitioners have submitted appeal against the orders of the 5th respondent before the 2nd respondent herein under Rule 35 of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules [for short APMMC Rules], 1966. Considering the grounds of the appeal, the 2nd respondent has passed an order on 11.01.2018, directing the 5th respondent to consider the explanations submitted by the petitioners and reverify by duly conducting inspection afresh and take action as per rules. Considering the orders passed by the 2nd respondent, the 5th respondent has considered the representations submitted by the petitioners and after having all the relevant material and evidence into consideration dropped the proceedings, by giving reasons in support of his findings and addressed a letter informing the same to the 2nd respondent. 10. While things stood thus, the 4th respondent herein has again issued show cause notices, dated 10.03.2020 to all the petitioners and as per the references in the said notice, the petitioners’ mining leased area was inspected on the respective dates, basing on the same the show cause notices were issued and directed the petitioners to show cause as to why the normal seionrage charges and penalty should not be levied on the alleged illegal excavated quantity. 11. 11. The petitioners contention is that no notice was issued on the dates of alleged inspection as referred in the notices, and in fact the alleged inspection was conducted neither in the presence of the petitioners nor in the presence of their representatives, and as the documents referred in the reference column were not within the knowledge of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners sought documents from the office of the 4th respondent. 12. According to the said documents referred, it is seen that after the proceedings were dropped, one Khaja Hussain, resident of Betamcherla seems to have made a representation to the Minister for Mines and Geology and in the said representation, he referred to the earlier proceedings of inspection conducted on 10.01.2017 and dropping of further proceedings and requested the Minister to re-enquire into the matter. On the said representation, the Minister of Panchayat Raj and Mines made an endorsement “Please examine and depute Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool and Assistant Geologist, Office of the Assistant Director of ADM&G, Vizianagaram to conduct re-enquiry and circulate the file immediately”. Basing on the said endorsement, dated 24.10.2019 the 2nd respondent herein issued a memo dated 30.10.2019, directing the 3rd respondent herein to enquire the matter along with Assistant Geologist, office of ADM&G, Vizianagaram and to initiate necessary action as per rules. 13. Consequent to the said memo issued by the 2nd respondent, the Assistant Geologist, Office of the ADM&G, Vizianagaram seems to have conducted an inspection and submitted a report dated 14.02.2020 and basing on the report, the 4th respondent herein issued a show cause notice dated 10.03.2020 asking the petitioners, to show cause as to why action should not be initiated for realization of illegal excavated and transported quantity of quartz as per Rule 26 (1) and (2) of the APMMC Rules. 14. In the said show cause notices, the authorities have also taken into consideration of the inspection conducted on 10.01.2017. After receipt of the said notice, the petitioners have made representations stating that in view of COVID-19, the government of Karnataka has ordered for lockdown and also imposed restrictions on interstate travelling. In view of the same, the petitioners requested time to submit their explanations to the show cause notices. After receipt of the said notice, the petitioners have made representations stating that in view of COVID-19, the government of Karnataka has ordered for lockdown and also imposed restrictions on interstate travelling. In view of the same, the petitioners requested time to submit their explanations to the show cause notices. But, without considering the request made by the petitioners and without taking into consideration of the pandemic situation, the 4th respondent has issued the present impugned demand notices dated 24.04.2020, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. 15. It is further stated that it not in dispute that the inspection conducted on 10.01.2017, the department has initiated proceedings, which culminated by the dropping of proceedings by the 5th respondent vide order dated 16.10.2018. The 2nd respondent in exercise of the statutory appellate power under section 35 of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules passed an order and in pursuance of the same, the 5th respondent issued the orders, dated 16.10.2018, by giving reasons for dropping the charges. 16. Contention of the petitioners is that once the order is passed in exercise of the statutory appellate power, it became final and in view of the same, the respondents have no power or jurisdiction to conduct re-enquire in respect of the same issue. Hence, the Minister for Panchayat Raj and Mines is not empowered to entertain a representation from the third party and pass an endorsement on the said representation and thereby directing the enquiry in respect of the same allegations, is not conferred on the respondents under the provisions of APMMC Rules, 1966. Hence, conducting the alleged enquiry and issuance of show cause notice and demand notice are illegal and without jurisdiction. 17. Even according to the references it clearly establishes that neither the petitioners were put to notice, nor representatives of the petitioners were present at the time of conducting alleged inspection, and the inspection conducted by the 4th respondent, behind the back of the petitioner and without furnishing the details of the alleged infirmities, the respondents have passed the impugned orders. It is made clear that the notices issued by the 4th respondent also did not found the infirmities at the time of conducting the alleged inspection. Hence, the impugned orders passed by the 4th respondent, is wholly illegal and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that the notices issued by the 4th respondent also did not found the infirmities at the time of conducting the alleged inspection. Hence, the impugned orders passed by the 4th respondent, is wholly illegal and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. In view of the lack of jurisdiction, the present impugned orders are liable to set aside. Hence, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions. 18. At the time of admission, in all the three matters, interim directions were granted, by suspending the impugned orders for a limited period and subsequently, the said orders were extended from time to time. 19. After notice, the 5th respondent has filed counter, also on behalf of the other respondents. 20. In the counter the respondents have denied the allegations made in the writ petitions. Though they have referred about the news item, published in the newspaper on 10.01.2017, the technical staff of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, office of the Deputy Director of mines and Geology, Kurnool and the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool have jointly inspected the mining lease area held by the petitioners for Quartz mineral and during the inspection the representatives of the petitioners have attended the inspection. As per the detailed study of the documents of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool and physical observations of the Mining Lease area, found that the petitioners have not excavated the material from the mining lease area after correlation of pit measurement and permitted quantity, it is concluded that dispatch permitted quantity is more than the actual excavated quantity, and it indicates excess drawn permits utilized for transportation of illegal material. Hence, Office of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, (Vigilance) Gooty has issued show cause notices, dated 05.08.2017 to the petitioners to submit their explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of show cause notices. 21. The petitioners have filed appeal before the Director of Mines and Geology concerned, against the demand notices invoking the power under section 35 of APMMC Rules, 1966 the Director of Mines and Geology has disposed of the appeals with a direction to the Assistant director of Mines and Geology, (Vigilance), Gooty to consider the request of the appellant and re-verify duly conducting inspection afresh and to take further necessary action as per rules afresh, if any variations found. Accordingly, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology (Vigilance), Gooty has conducted field inspection on 06.10.2018 in W.P.No.8496 of 2020 and on 17.04.2019 in W.P.No.8597 of 2020 and on 27.03.2019 in W.P.No.8499 of 2020, and studied the records pertaining to the Mining Lease for Quartz area belonging to the petitioners respectively, and submitted compliance report to the Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam. 22. Though the Assistant Director has submitted report, dropping the proceedings, no further orders are received from the Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam. So the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology is not the final authority to drop the further proceedings. The superior authority is Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam/Government to take further necessary action. Subsequently, basing on the complaint received from Sri S.Khaja Hussain, R/o.Bethamcherla, Kurnool District, the Government vide Memo, dated 25.10.2019 has instructed the Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam to take necessary action against the illegal mining being done for Quartz by the petitioners. 23. Accordingly the Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam vide Memo dated 30.10.2019 has directed the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool and the Office of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Vizianagaram to enquire into the matter and initiate action as per rules. 24. Further, they have relied on the Rule 26(3) (i) of APMMC Rules, 1966, which read as follows:- 26. Penalty for unauthorized quarrying:– (3)(i) For the purpose of ascertaining the position of payment of Mineral Revenue due to the Government or for any other purpose under these rules, the person authorised under sub-rule (2) may– (a) enter and inspect any premises ; (b) survey and take measurements ; (c) weigh, measure or take measurements of stocks of minerals ; (d) examine any document, book, register or record in the possession or power of any person having the control of, or connected with any mineral including the processed mineral and place marks of identification thereon and take extracts from, or make copies of such document, book, register or record ; and (e) order the production of any such document, book, register, record as is referred in Clause (d). 25. 25. Thus, in view of the above provision, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool and Assistant Geologist, Office of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Vizianagaram (the then Assistant Geologist, Office of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, (Vig.) Gooty) have conducted detailed inspection and enquiry on the respective dates in the subject leased areas. 26. Further the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool has submitted a detailed enquiry report to the Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam vide Lr.No.4634/Vg-quartz/2019 dated 26.02.2020 and the same was forwarded to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool and instructed him to take necessary action on illegal excavation and transportation of Quartz in the mining lease area of the petitioners and the other areas of Kurnool District. 27. Basing on the instructions, the show cause notices dated 10.03.2020 were issued to the petitioners, through registered post as well as through e-mails to the petitioners’ firms. The Government of India has ordered a national wide lockdown on 24.03.2020 as a preventive measure against the COVID-19 pandemic in India, there was no hindrance to submit/communicate the explanation to the show cause notice through e-mail, within the stipulated time in the show cause notice. But the petitioners intentionally submitted the interim replies requesting time to for submission of the detailed explanation. Therefore, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology has issued demand noticed on 24.04.2020 to the petitioners, as per Rule 26(1) and (2) of APMMC Rules, 1966. 28. Further submitted that the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, (Vigilance), Gooty vide his letter No.92/Vg-Gooty/quartz/2017-3, dated 16.10.2018 has submitted compliance report to the Director of mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam for information and necessary action. There are no further orders received from Director, Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam, accordingly the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology is not final authority to drop the further proceedings. Only the superior authority, i.e. Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimptanam/Government has to take further necessary action. In view of the same, the impugned orders are passed as per the Rules, thereby requested to dismiss the writ petitions. 29. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has mainly contended that the impugned orders have to be set aside on the two grounds. Firstly, for violation of the principles of natural justice and secondly, having no jurisdiction or competency to pass the impugned orders. 30. 29. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has mainly contended that the impugned orders have to be set aside on the two grounds. Firstly, for violation of the principles of natural justice and secondly, having no jurisdiction or competency to pass the impugned orders. 30. To substantiate his arguments, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred the impugned show cause notices, issued by the respondents on 10.03.2020 and it is clearly demonstrates that no notice or information has given either to the petitioner or to the representatives of the petitioner, before conducting the inspection or at the time of the inspection. Further he submitted that the respondents without conducting any inspection and without the knowledge of the petitioners, also without supplying the copy of the reports to the petitioners straightaway issued the impugned show cause notices, basing on the said alleged inspections conducted by them, is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice. 31. He further contended that even while issuing show cause notice, on 10.03.2020, the documents referred or relied in the notices were not supplied to the petitioners to submit their explanations. Apart from the above, the petitioners registered office is at Bangalore and immediately after receipt of the show cause notices, the petitioners made representation explaining the lockdown imposed by the Union of India and also further restrictions imposed by the State of Karnataka for interstate travel, and requesting time till 30.04.2020 for submission of a detailed reply. Without considering the said request and without rejecting the said request for further time, the 4th respondent has passed final demand notice, is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice. On this ground, the impugned orders have to be set aside. 32. Learned counsel also submitted that after obtaining the material on request, it clearly indicates that one Khaja Hussain, resident of Betamcherla made a representation to the Minister for Mines and Geology that the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology has dropped his proceedings, by order dated 06.10.2018, hence requested to re-enquire into the matter. 33. In the said representation, the Minister for Panchayat Raj and Mines, Government of A.P. made an endorsement stating that “Please examine and depute Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool and Assistant Geologist, Office of the Assistant Director of ADM & G, Vizianagaram to conduct re-enquiry and circulate the file immediately”. 33. In the said representation, the Minister for Panchayat Raj and Mines, Government of A.P. made an endorsement stating that “Please examine and depute Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool and Assistant Geologist, Office of the Assistant Director of ADM & G, Vizianagaram to conduct re-enquiry and circulate the file immediately”. Basing on the said endorsement, the Director of Mines and Geology in his proceedings dated 30.10.2019 has given directions to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool to enquire into the matter with the Assistant Geologist of Office of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Vizianagaram and initiate necessary action as per rules. The said proceedings and endorsement of the Minister is contrary to the provisions of the statute. For the same, learned counsel has relied on the Rules 35 and 35-A of APMMC Rules, which are extracted below, for better appreciations of the facts: Rules 35 and 35-A APMMC Rules 1966 35. Appeal:— An appeal against any order passed by the Assistant Director or Deputy Director, Joint Director under these rules shall lie to the Director within a period of two months from the date of communication of such order to the party aggrieved and an appeal against an order of the Director shall be to the Government in like manner. 35-A. Revision:– The Government may either suo motu at any time or on an application made within ninety days, call for and examine the record relating to any order passed or proceeding taken by the Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director under these rules for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of such proceedings and pass such order in reference thereto as they think fit. 34. As per the above said rules, the Minister does not empowered to pass an endorsement on the representation made by the third party, which adversely effect to the petitioners. Even according to the above said Rule, the Government by suo motu can take or initiate action at any point of time, or on an application made within 90 days, on any order passed by the authorities, as per the statute. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the orders passed by the competent authority, become final. 35. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the orders passed by the competent authority, become final. 35. The 5th respondent who is competent authority, as per the statute, consequent to the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in the appeal filed by the petitioners, has conducted thorough enquiry and after verifying the records, passed order in Lr.No.92/Vg-Gooty/Quartz/2017-3, dated 16.10.2018 by giving following reasons:- “The contention of the appellant that 5,95,631 of float ore available in the leased area. The Mining Scheme approved by Zonal Joint Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad vide Letter No.2985/MP-KNL/2012, dated 24.01.2013 in favour of M/s.Vee Jee Mines and Minerals. In Mining Scheme, stated that 5,95,631 MT of float ore is occurring over an area of 1,58,835 Sq.MTs and over an depth of 2.5 MTs. As per the IBM approved Mining plan dated 16.01.2000, the maximum is RL.575 MTs and minim R.L.525 MTS and below the bottom level reserves are not estimated. In mining plan approved dated 24.01.2013, 12 Mts Qaurtz reef is exposed without any overburden. Therefore, about 38 MTs reef slope is covered under overburden. As seen from the Google Images from the year 2005 to 2017, the mining operations commenced only after 2012. As per the Google Images and field observations, existence of float ore is proved. In the circumstances, the contention of the appellant petitioner M/s.Vee Jee Mines and Minerals that they extracted and dispatched 7,04,450 MT of Quartz mineral out of which 4,94,512 MT of float ore and 2,09,938 MT of Quartz from pits may be considerable on the following evidences. 1. As per the Google Image, dated 11.05.2005 and 07.01.2012, occurrence of float ore on the virgin ground is clearly observed. 2. Photograph (7.7) showing the occurrence of the float ore shown in the approved mining scheme dated 24.01.2013. 3. The approved mining scheme dated 24.01.2013 under float ore reserves, 5,95,631 MT of float ore is occurring in the lease area. 4. The Technical staff who inspected the M/s.Vee Jee Minesa and Minerals over an extent of 22.284 Hectares in Sy.No.557 of Hathibelagal Village, Alur Mandal, Kurnool District not consider the float ore production and production from loosely compacted Quartz boulders. 5. 4. The Technical staff who inspected the M/s.Vee Jee Minesa and Minerals over an extent of 22.284 Hectares in Sy.No.557 of Hathibelagal Village, Alur Mandal, Kurnool District not consider the float ore production and production from loosely compacted Quartz boulders. 5. In view of the above, the contentions of the M/s.Vejee Mines and Minerals in the reply given to the show cause notice No.92/Vg-Gooty/Quartz/2017-3, dt.05.08.2017 that they extracted 7,04,450 MT of Quartz from the mine from 4,94,512 MT of float ore and 2,09,938 MT of Quartz and taken dispatch permits for 7,04,450 MT of Quartz are considered and the lease holder misused the permit for dispatch of illegal procured Quartz of 5,05,009 MT may not be established. Hence, further action on show cause notice No. 92/Vg-Gooty/Quartz/2017-3, dated 05.08.2017 issued to provide evidences for not misusing the permits obtained n the Quartz mining lease area held M/s.Vee Jee Mines and Minerals over an extent of 22.284 Hectares in Sy.No.557 of Hathibelagal Village, Alur Mandal, Kurnool District was dropped based on the field evidences and on the record of approved mining scheme dated 24.01.2013.” 36. Accordingly dropped further action basing on the show cause notices on 05.08.2017 and held that on the field evidences and on the record the mining is done as per the approved mining scheme dated 24.01.2013. Even according to the said proceedings, it clearly establishes that the action initiated pursuant to the article published in the Eenadu newspaper and also show cause notice dated 05.08.2017 was dropped. 37. Even according to the Rule 35-A, the Government can review the said orders at any point of time but in the instant case, either the Minister in his endorsement, or the 2nd respondent in his proceeding dated 30.10.2019, has interdicted the orders passed by the competent authority as per Rules, in his proceedings dated 16.10.2018. Without setting aside the said orders of the competent authority, they cannot pass the present impugned orders and the same is not supported by the any provisions of the statute. Hence, the present impugned orders may be set aside, on the ground that the same are contrary to the provisions of the act as well as the rules there under. 38. Hence, the present impugned orders may be set aside, on the ground that the same are contrary to the provisions of the act as well as the rules there under. 38. The other counsel, Sri Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai in W.P.No.8499 of 2020 and Sri Ravi Kondaveeti in W.P.No.8598 of 2020 appearing on behalf of the petitioners, have adopted the arguments advanced by Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel appearing in W.P. No.8496 of 2020, and supplemented one more ground that in view of the amendment to Rule 26 (3) to APMMC Rules, 1966, as per the ratio decided by this Court in W.P.No.8356 and Batch, dated 06.10.2020 the respondents have no power to initiate action. 39. According to the common order passed by this Court in the batch of writ petitions vide W.P.No.8361 of 2020 and batch, “As per the law of the land, these are within the exclusive domain of the Courts only. Rule 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Dealer’s License Rules, 2000, on which the respondent relies upon merely states that penalty can be imposed. This Rule does not override the amended Rule 26(3)(ii) of the Rules and it does not authorize the 3rd respondent to decide on the punishments. The old Rule may have authorized the officials to levy penalty but in this Court’s opinion the new Rule by prescribing punishment of imprisonment upto two years or with fine and market value of the mineral etc., or both has taken this power out of the purview of the 3rd respondent and the like. As rightly submitted by the petitioner this is a penal provision and like all penal provisions it should be very strictly construed. The law is well settled and need not be repeated here. The power to impose such punishments of imprisonment with other penalties is exercisable by the Competent Court’s alone.” 40. In view of the same, the authorities have no jurisdiction to entertain, only the competent Courts have the jurisdiction. Hence, the impugned notices may be set aside. 41. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents have submitted that the order of the 5th respondent dated 16.10.2018 is only a report submitted to the Director of Mines and Geology and accordingly the Director of Mines and Geology has not passed any final orders. Hence, the impugned notices may be set aside. 41. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents have submitted that the order of the 5th respondent dated 16.10.2018 is only a report submitted to the Director of Mines and Geology and accordingly the Director of Mines and Geology has not passed any final orders. Therefore, as per the Rules the Government can take action or enquire at any time, against the illegal mining and transportation of mineral. Hence, basing on the request made by the Khaja Hussain, resident of Bethamcherla, basing on the endorsement made by the Minister, the 2nd respondent initiated action on the inspection done by the competent authorities, basing on the report only the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Kurnool has issued show cause notices and passed the final demand notice. 42. He further contended that even though there is Covid restrictions, the authorities have issued show cause notices through e-mails, hence, the petitioners as well can submit their response or replies through e-mail, only to protract the issue the petitioners have submitted a letter for extension of time, considering the same, the authorities have rejected their claim for extension of time and passed the impugned orders, there is no violation of principles of natural justice while passing the impugned orders. And he further stated that as per Rule 35 of the APMMC Rules, 1966 the petitioners have to file an appeal before the 2nd respondent, and in that view, the writ petitions are not maintainable. 43. Having regard to the facts of the case and considering the relevant provisions of the Act and taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances, with regard to the contentions raised by the respondents on maintainability of the writ petitions and in view of the availability of the alternative remedy of appeal to the Director of Mines and Geology under the provisions of the Rule 35 of APMMC Rules 1966, it is the considered opinion of this Court, the same cannot stand, in view of the reason that the present impugned orders are passed basing on the endorsement made by the Minister for Mines and Geology and consequential orders of the Director of Mines and Geology, sequel to the said proceedings, the present impugned orders are passed. It is also required to be noted that admittedly the impugned orders were not preceded by any notice of opportunity being heard, as such the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the present writ petition is certainly maintainable. 44. No doubt the Government has suo motu power to initiate action as per Rule 35-A at any point of time and similarly they can initiate action on the application made within 90 days. On close reading of Rule 35-A, it clearly demonstrates that the Government can call for and examine the records relating to the orders passed or proceedings taken by the Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director of Mines and Geology under these Rules, for the purpose of satisfying themselves to the legality or priority of such orders. On perusal of the record, it clarifies that on the same day on receipt of the representation, the Minister has made an endorsement. Consequently the Director of Mines and Geology has passed an order on 30.10.2019 to enquire into the matter and submit the report. Basing on the said endorsement passed by the 2nd respondent, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool as well as the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool has conducted enquiry and passed impugned orders. 45. It is seen that while exercising the discretion by the respondents, without considering the relevant material and without interdicting the orders passed by the competent authority on 16.10.2018, the present impugned orders are passed. Hence, the same is violative of Rule 35-A of APMMC Rules. 46. For the purpose of Rule 35-A, if the Government feels that the orders passed by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, on 16.10.2018 were not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Director of Mines and Geology, who is competent authority can set aside the said proceedings, then only they can invoke Rule 35-A. Contradicting the same, the Government cannot breach the provisions of statute and made orders contrary to the same. In view of the Rule 35-A of APMMC Rules 1966, the 1st and 2nd respondents have no power to initiate action without interdicting the orders passed by the competent authority. 47. In view of the Rule 35-A of APMMC Rules 1966, the 1st and 2nd respondents have no power to initiate action without interdicting the orders passed by the competent authority. 47. In view of the above discussion, the impugned notices Nos.2223/M4-QTZ/2007, 5513/M4-QTZ/2000 and 3319/M4-QTZ/2012 dated 24.04.2020 are set aside and the respondents are given liberty to proceed with in accordance with Rule 35-A of APMMC Rules. 48. Accordingly all the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.