THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.25198 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner claims to be the owner of agricultural lands to a total extent of Acs.23.58 cents in Sy.Nos.247/1, 250/2, 251/2, 252/2, 253/1, 266/2, 267/1, 267/2, 267/3, 254, 272/1 and 274/1 of Vatluru Village, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. He states that as the lands are not even, he removed the earth from the higher altitude and filled the same on the land situated in lower altitude and thereby leveled the entire land so as to make it even and suitable for cultivation. While so, he states that, surprisingly, he received a show- cause notice dated 17.05.2010 from the 1st respondent- Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Eluru, stating that the vigilance and enforcement officials along with the surveyor and other revenue officials concerned, have inspected his lands on 12.03.2010 in his presence and they found that he consumed quarry earth of 40,529 cum., for filing the site, without any valid permits or license issued by the Department, and the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Eluru, submitted a report to the 1st respondent to that effect and requested to demand normal seigniorage fee and one time penalty from him, amounting to Rs.17,83,276/-, for such consumption of quarry earth. Thus, the 1st respondent, by the said notice dated 17.05.2010, directed him to submit his explanation as to why action should not be taken against him for the illegal consumption of 40,529 cum., of quarry earth for filling the area in the subject lands, within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. Petitioner states that though in the said show-cause notice, it was stated that the alleged inspection of the lands was done in his presence, but in fact, he was not at all present at that time, and he submitted his explanation to the 1st respondent on 29.05.2010, stating that he was not present at the time of alleged inspection and that no quarry earth was consumed by him and he dug the earth from his own lands for the purpose of levelling the land. It is the grievance of the petitioner that without considering his explanation, the 1st respondent issued the impugned demand notice dated 09.08.2010, directing him to pay the normal seigniorage fee of Rs.8,91,638/- together with the penalty of Rs.8,91,638/-, totalling to Rs.17,83,276/-, within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition, seeking appropriate relief. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents. A perusal of the impugned demand notice would clearly go to show that the 1st respondent, except stating that the petitioner did not raise objections before the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Eluru, and thus his explanation is neither satisfactory nor convincing, has not dealt with any of the objections raised by the petitioner in his explanation to the show-cause notice dated 17.05.2010. According to the petitioner, he was not present at the time of alleged inspection and is not aware of the inspection proceedings and that the alleged report of the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer is also not furnished to him, and thus the stand taken by the 1st respondent that he did not raise his objections before the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer is unjustified. Either in the show-cause notice or in the impugned demand notice, there is any indication that the petitioner was served with the alleged report of the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, or the mediators report. Thus, the impugned demand notice dated 09.08.2010 issued by the 1st respondent, without serving the copy of the report of the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, which has made the basis for issuance of the impugned demand notice, and without dealing with the objections raised by the petitioner in his explanation to the show-cause notice, cannot be sustained and is therefore liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned demand notice dated 09.08.2010 is set aside. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to issue fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner, if they intend to do so, duly serving copies of the mediators report and the report of the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, and other relevant documents, if any, and then pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after considering the explanation that may be offered by the petitioner, if any, to the said show-cause notice. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 8th October, 2010 IBL