IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14095 of 2008 Between: SJK Steel Plant Limited, Jambulapadu Village, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapur District 515411. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Mines & Geology, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Department of Mines & Gology, Ashok Nagar, Near Railway Station, Kurnool. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the demand notice No.1097/Vg/2008 dated 16.06.2008 calling upon the petitioner company to pay the sums specified therein under Section 21(5), 23-A of the Act is totally illegal, without authority of law and contrary to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.ADINARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 14095 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner-company, registered under the companies Act, has set up a plant for the purpose of manufacture of steel rods and bars. It is not in dispute that the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Anantapur inspected the petitioner factory premises on 29-10- 2007 and 30-10-2007 and seized some of the records including the stores inward registers, trip sheets and transit forms alleging evasion of Royalty during the period from 2000-2001 to 2007-2008. On the basis of the report submitted by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, the third respondent-Deputy Director of Mines and Geology issued a show cause notice dated 19-04-2008 calling upon the petitioner to show cause within 15 days as to why action should not be taken for realization of the evaded royalty amount in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 23 and 23-A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Though a report of the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer was enclosed to the show cause notice, the petitioner was not in a position to submit appropriate explanation since the entire registers maintained by the petitioner were seized by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer. In the circumstances, the petitioner made a representation dated 17-06-2008 requesting the third respondent to provide an additional time of 30 days stating that the necessary reply would be submitted as soon as it received documents from the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer. However, without considering the request, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 16-06-2008 directing the petitioner to pay the alleged royalty amount of Rs.75,41,121/- along with costs of all consumed minerals of Rs.41,21,14,039/- within 15 days. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed contenting inter alia that the impugned demand notice is arbitrary and illegal apart from being violative of principles of natural justice. As could be seen from the material on record, it is not in dispute that the records relating to the petitioner-unit including the inward registers, trip sheets and transit forms were seized by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer. The specific case of the petitioner is that it is not possible for it to submit explanation to the show cause in the absence of the said documents. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner made a request to the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer to provide the copies of the documents seized by it so as to enable the petitioner to submit its explanation. In its representation dated 16-05-2008 the petitioner while disputing the allegations and requesting additional time of 30 days for submitting comprehensive reply also prayed for an opportunity of personal hearing. However, it is apparent that the impugned demand notice was made without considering the request of the petitioner and confirming the amounts demanded in the show cause notice mainly on the basis of the report of the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer. Such an unilateral decision which is not even supported by any reasons, on the face of it being in violation of the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Accordingly, the impugned demand notice dated 16-06-2008 is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer to furnish the copies of the seized documents as required by the petitioner in its representation dated 16-05-2008 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the petitioner shall submit its explanation within two weeks and after considering the same it is open to the third respondent to pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law. No costs. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Anantapur also for taking necessary steps. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 07-07-2008 KLP