Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 911 (AP)

V. Manga v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-09-16

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2022
ORDER : The petitioner had been granted lease over 2 Hectares of land in Sy.No.11 of Parawada Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District on 28.07.2010, for a period of 10 years. 2. While the quarry was in operation, the technical staff of the office of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam are said to have conducted a survey and inspection on 20.08.2022 and 25.08.2020. This survey is said to have been conducted in the presence of Sri V.Venkata Rao, who is the husband of the writ petitioner herein. On the basis of this inspection, a show cause notice was issued on 09.09.2020 to the petitioner stating that the inspection of 20.08.2020 and 25.08.2020 had revealed that the petitioner had undertaken illegal quarrying outside the lease demarcated area due to which payment of seigniorage fee had been evaded and to show cause why seigniorage fee, penalty and other amounts should not be collect from the petitioner on account of such illegal quarrying. 3. In reply to this show cause notice, the petitioner had submitted an interim reply dated 28.09.2020. In the said reply, the petitioner apart from raising various issues had contended that the inspection of 20.08.2020 and 25.08.2020 had been conducted behind the back of the petitioner and sought a copy of the said inspection report. The petitioner had taken the stand that she would be able to file a proper reply after only the inspection report is supplied. 4. The Assistant Director of Mines, Visakhapatnam had issued a Demand Notice No.2871/Q/2006 dated 14.10.2020. In this demand notice, the Assistant Director stated that the survey and inspection reports sought by the petitioner had been furnished on her with request to submit her reply on or before 06.10.2020. As no reply had been given, the Assistant Director of Mines is said to have passed the demand notice. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that even though this demand notice is said to have been issued on 14.10.2020, the petitioner was under the impression that the matter was still pending before the Assistant Director and the petitioner had even filed an application on 31.03.2021 under the Right to Information Act, through her son, requiring a copy of the inspection reports. It is only at that stage, the petitioner is said to have been served with a copy of the impugned demand notice, which was challenged by her, by way of W.P.No.12853 of 2021. However, this writ petition could not be proceeded with on account of the Covid-19 pandemic and was withdrawn with liberty. Thereafter, this writ petition was filed. 6. The primary contention of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the Assistant Director of Mines, arrayed as respondent No.3 in the writ petition had not furnished a copy of the inspection reports, sought by the petitioner in her letter dated 28.09.2020. It is the further contention of the petitioner that on account of the non furnishing of the said report, further objections and contentions could not be raised by the petitioner. 7. Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement in the demand notice that the reports had been served on the petitioner on 29.09.2020 is incorrect and the petitioner was awaiting the service of the copy of the said reports. But the 3rd respondent without furnishing the copy of the report had unilaterally passed the impugned order and the same suffers from violation of principles of natural justice as the report which is the basis of the show cause notice and the demand notice had not been served on the petitioner and the petitioner was not given an adequate opportunity of hearing. 8. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 also. In this counter affidavit, the 3rd respondent took the stand that the inspections of 20.08.22020 and 25.08.2020 had revealed that the petitioner had conducted excavation of minor minerals beyond the lease area given to the petitioner and that the petitioner had no cogent answer to this finding in the report. It is stated that on this count, the impugned order is tenable and does not require any interference. 9. As far as the contention of the petitioner that the inspection reports were not furnished to her, raised by the petitioner in paragraph No.6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are concerned, the 3rd respondent has not chosen to give any specific reply to this contention. There is no formal denial of the said allegation also. 10. There is no formal denial of the said allegation also. 10. During the course of the hearing of the writ petition, this Court had directed the respondents, on 11.07.2022, to serve a copy of the report on the petitioner. On 25.07.2022, the Government Pleader produced an inspection report of these two days. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the inspection report produced by the Government Pleader does not contain the signatures of the representatives of the petitioner and is not the report which was prepared at that point of time. A perusal of the said report shows that it is signed by the Assistant Geologist in the office of the 3rd respondent. There is no other signature. The statement said to have been signed by the husband of the petitioner has been attached to this report. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the statement and the inspection report are part of the same document and the explanation given by the husband at the time of the inspection was reduced to writing and it was signed by the said husband. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the husband of the petitioner had furnished a statement and had signed the said statement. However, he submits that the husband of the petitioner had also signed on the inspection report and the same has not been produced before this Court till today. 11. Heard Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology. 12. The primary contention of the petitioner that the survey reports of 20.08.2020 and 25.08.2020 had not been furnished to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned demand notice has not been denied by the respondents. In the absence of such a denial, the contention of the petitioner would have to be accepted. 13. The inspection report produced before this Court contains the signature of only of the Geologist in the office of the 3rd respondent and does not contain the signatures of any of the other persons, who are said to be present at the time of the inspection. In the circumstances, it is difficult to accept the inspection report produced before this Court was the inspection report required at the time of the inspection on 20.08.2020 and 25.08.2020. 14. In the circumstances, it is difficult to accept the inspection report produced before this Court was the inspection report required at the time of the inspection on 20.08.2020 and 25.08.2020. 14. In the circumstances, it must be held that the impugned demand notice has been passed by the 3rd respondent, without furnishing the copy of the inspection report said to have been prepared earlier and on the basis of which, the demand notice has been issued. 15. It is settled law that when action is sought to be taken against any person, the said person has to be informed of the case against him and be furnished with all the material on the basis of which, the said case is being made out against the person. It is only when these two requirements are complied that the affected person would have an adequate opportunity to explain his/her case and any derogation from requirements would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. 16. In the present case, non furnishing of the joint inspection report would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. 17. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned Demand Notice No.2871/Q/2006 dated 14.10.2020 and remanding the matter back to the 3rd respondent to furnish a copy of the joint inspection report after obtaining a receipt for the said document and to pass orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and an opportunity to place his/her objections on record. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.