ORDER : 1. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “......to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for records in and relating to the proceedings of the 4th respondent in demand notice No. 3479/Sand Complaint/2022, dated 02.01.2023 and quash the same of the holding the same as illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction and violative of Andhra Pradesh Mines and Minerals Concession Rules Act, 1966, as amended in G.O.Ms.No. 71, Industries, Infrastructure, Invest & Commerce (Mines-II) Department, 04.09.2019 and pass such other orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the 1st petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.1.20 cents in Sy.No. 483/2 in Chinna Pendekallu Village, Adoni Mandal, Kurnool District under a registered sale deed dated 25.10.2021. The total extent of land in S.No. 183/2 is Ac.9.70 cents. Out of the same, petitioner purchased Ac.1.20 cents from one B.Ramana Reddy. Petitioner also purchased an extent of Ac.1.77 cents, out of Ac.7.84 cents in Sy.No. 484/2A of Chinna Pendekallu Village, Adoni Mandal, Kurnool District under a registered sale deed dated 01.04.2022 from one D.Thimma Reddy. One D.Thimma Reddy and one B.Ramana Reddy are brothers. 3. One B.Purushotham Reddy filed suit in O.S.No. 09 of 2017 against the brother of petitioner’s vendor seeking partition. Petitioners filed an application seeking impleadment and the same is pending. One B.Purushotham Reddy filed W.P.No. 31722 of 2022, complaining that the official respondents have not taken any action on the complaint made by him regarding illegal mining operations in Sy.No. 482/2A in an extent of Ac.5.54 cents and in an extent of Ac.3.74 cents in Sy.No. 483/2. While ordering notice, Court directed the respondent Nos.6 and 7 i.e. Assistant Director, Mines and Geology and District Special Enforcement Officer, Special Enforcement Bureau, to consider and take appropriate action on the basis of complaint made by the petitioner dated 06.09.2022 with a due notice to respondent Nos.8 to 16 in that writ petition. 4. Petitioners, in the affidavit, contended that they received demand notice dated 02.01.2023. No show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the demand notice. The inspection said to have been conducted is contrary to Rule 9-B(1)(g) of G.O.Ms.No. 71, dated 24.06.2019. With the said allegation, the above writ petition is filed. 5. 4. Petitioners, in the affidavit, contended that they received demand notice dated 02.01.2023. No show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the demand notice. The inspection said to have been conducted is contrary to Rule 9-B(1)(g) of G.O.Ms.No. 71, dated 24.06.2019. With the said allegation, the above writ petition is filed. 5. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. Respondent No. 4 deposed the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it was contended, inter-alia, that one B.Virupaksha Reddy filed complaint to the Director of Mines and Geology on 06.09.2022 regarding illegal excavation and transportation of sand in Sy.No. 483/2 and 484/2A of Chinna Pendekallu Village, Adoni Mandal, Kurnool District. The Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam vide memo No. 6362374/Sand/Illegal/2022, dated 16.09.2022 has forwarded the complaint to take necessary action. The said B.Virupaksha Reddy also filed W.P.No. 31722 of 2022. The Court directed the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool and District Special Enforcement Officer, Special Enforcement Bureau (for short “SEB”) to take appropriate action. 6. The District Special Enforcement Officer, SEB, Kurnool vide memo No. 162/SEB-KNL/2022, dated 31.10.2022 directed their Station House Officer, Adoni, SEB to take appropriate action against the offenders and also requested the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool to co-ordinate. Technical staff i.e. Royalty Inspector and Surveyor, Village Revenue staff of Chinnapendekallu Village Revenue Officer, Panchayat Secretary, Village Surveyor, Village Revenue Assistants and Sub-Inspector of Police (SEB), Adoni inspected the complaint area on 13.10.2022 in presence of one B.Virupaksha Reddy and conducted panchanama. However, one B.Virupaksha Reddy refused to sign in panchanama. The joint inspection team conducted survey and found pits which are described in the counter. Show-cause notice was issued to the land owner under sub-rule 6(f) of Rule 9-B of G.O.Ms.No. 71, dated 24.06.2019. No reply was received and hence demand notice was sent to the petitioners and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Heard Sri K.Sita Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No. 5. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that Rule 9-B(1)(g) of the rules provides for the complaint Redressal mechanism. Inspection was not conducted as per the procedure mandated in G.O.Ms.No. 71, dated 04.09.2019. Inspection was not conducted in presence of the petitioners. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that Rule 9-B(1)(g) of the rules provides for the complaint Redressal mechanism. Inspection was not conducted as per the procedure mandated in G.O.Ms.No. 71, dated 04.09.2019. Inspection was not conducted in presence of the petitioners. Thus the demand notice issued based on the inspection is liable to be set aside. 9. Learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, per contra, would contend that inspection was conducted by a team of officers and they found excavation of sand. Hence, show-cause notice dated 01.11.2022 was issued to the petitioners. However, since there is no reply, impugned demand notice was issued. Learned Government Pleader would also contend that team of members inspected the land as per G.O.Ms.No. 71 dated 04.09.2019. Thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 10. The point for consideration is: Whether the inspection was conducted on 13.10.2022 as per the procedure mandated in G.O.Ms.No. 71 dated 04.09.2019? 11. The Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of powers conferred under sections 15(1), (1A), 21(2), 22, 23 and 23(c) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 made amendments to Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 issued in G.O.Ms.No. 1172, Industries (B-1), 4th September, 1967. Rule 9-B was substituted by G.O.Ms.No. 71, Industries, Infrastructure, Investment and Commerce (Mines-II) Department dated 04.09.2019. The relevant provision under rule 9-B (1) (g) is extracted herewith: (g) Complaint Redressal Mechanism: A complaint Redressal mechanism is established to redress the grievances/complaints made by any citizen/NGOs in an effective and time bound manner: (i) Complaint Redressal Committee comprises of the following: (a) Collector and District Magistrate concerned Chairman (b) Superintendent of Police of concerned District Member (c) Deputy Director of Mines and Geology concerned Member-Convener (ii) Enquiry Team comprises of: (a) Revenue Divisional Officer concerned. (b) Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned. (c) Assistant Director of Mines and Geology concerned. (iii) The procedure of the Complaint Redressal Committee (CRC) is as follows: (a) Any person/Non-Governmental Organization/party may file a complaint regarding illegal sand mining, illegal transportation and illegal stocking to the Collector and District Magistrate with material evidence either through online or otherwise. Each such complaint will be uniquely numbered. (c) Assistant Director of Mines and Geology concerned. (iii) The procedure of the Complaint Redressal Committee (CRC) is as follows: (a) Any person/Non-Governmental Organization/party may file a complaint regarding illegal sand mining, illegal transportation and illegal stocking to the Collector and District Magistrate with material evidence either through online or otherwise. Each such complaint will be uniquely numbered. (b) On receipt of such complaint, the Collector and District Magistrate, shall forward the complaint to the enquiry team to conduct enquiry by duly causing inspection by calling the complainant and the other party if any, and submit enquiry report within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of complaint. (c) On receipt of enquiry report, the Complaint Redressal Committee shall take the decision on the report of the Enquiry team and pass speaking orders within fifteen (15) days. (d) If aggrieved by the orders passed by the complaint redressal committee, the complainant may prefer an appeal before the State Level Redressal Committee comprising of: (i) Prl. Secretary/Secretary Mines, Industries and Commerce Department Chairman (ii) Additional Director General (Law and order) of Police Member (iii) Director of Mines and Geology Member-Convener The State Level Redressal Committee after due consideration shall dispose the appeal and pass speaking orders within thirty (30) days from the date of filing of appeal. 12. A perusal of the sub-rule (iii) of rule (g) mandates that whenever a complaint was received, the Collector and District Magistrate shall forward the complaint to the enquiry team to conduct enquiry by duly causing inspection by calling the complaint and the other party if any, and submit enquiry report within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of complaint. 13. The case on hand, complaint was made to the Director of Mines and Geology who, in turn, forwarded the same to the Deputy Director, Mines and Geology, by memo dated 16.09.2022. The complainant also filed W.P.No. 31722 of 2022, complaining the inaction on the part of the official respondents. While ordering notice, learned single judge directed the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology and Special Enforcement Officer, SEB to take appropriate action on the basis of complaint made by the petitioner with due notice to respondent Nos.8 to 16. 14. The complainant also filed W.P.No. 31722 of 2022, complaining the inaction on the part of the official respondents. While ordering notice, learned single judge directed the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology and Special Enforcement Officer, SEB to take appropriate action on the basis of complaint made by the petitioner with due notice to respondent Nos.8 to 16. 14. It is pertinent to mention here that, according to the counter, the technical staff i.e. Royalty Inspector and Surveyor, Village Revenue staff of Chinnapendekallu Village Revenue Officer, Panchayat Secretary, Village Surveyor, Village Revenue Assistants and Sub-Inspector of Police (SEB), Adoni jointly inspected on 13.10.2022 and conducted panchanama. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not even signed on the panchanama. The counter also does not indicate regarding service of notice at the time of inspection on the petitioners. As per sub-rule (iii) of Rule (g), the redressal committee shall take decision on the report of enquiry team and pass speaking orders within 15 days. The enquiry team consists of Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned and the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology concerned. 15. When a procedure contemplated in the rules, the officers should follow the procedure. If a statue provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. In Chandra Kishore Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad and Others, 1999 (8) SCC 266 the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para No. 17 held that “it is a well-settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner.” 16. As pointed out supra, the inspection procedure adopted by the respondents is contrary to 9-B (1) (g) of G.O.Ms.No. 71 dated 04.09.2019. The demand notice basing upon the alleged inspection is liable to be set aside. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner also specifically contended in the writ affidavit that the demand notice was not received prior to the show cause notice. The counter affidavit does not indicate as to when the show cause notice was issued and the service of notice against the writ petitioners. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner also specifically contended in the writ affidavit that the demand notice was not received prior to the show cause notice. The counter affidavit does not indicate as to when the show cause notice was issued and the service of notice against the writ petitioners. The mentioning of issuance of the show-cause notice dated 01.11.2022 in the counter do not serve the requirement unless it has been specifically averred as to date of issuance and service on the petitioners. When an averment was made regarding nonservice of show cause notice, the counter should be clear as to when this show cause notice was despatched to the petitioners and the service of show cause notice to the petitioners. In the absence of such an averment, this Court is of the opinion that even the show cause notice was also not served on the petitioners. 18. In view of the discussion supra, the demand-notice vide No. 3479/Sand Complaint/2022, dated 02.01.2023 is liable to be set aside. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However, this order will not preclude the authorities from conducting enquiry as per G.O.Ms.No. 71 dated 04.09.2019. No costs. 20. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.