HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH W.P.No.10865 OF 2010 Dated 05-05-2010 Between: M/s. Lakshmi Sainadha Stone Crusher, rep. by K.Varalakshmi …Petitioner Vs. The District Collector, Kurnool District and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH W.P.No.10865 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: Heard both sides. It is the case of the petitioner that she has set up a stone crushing unit in Sy.No.413/C of Thadakanapalle Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District after complying with all the required formalities and also obtained sanction from the concerned authorities. Further, the petitioner also set up a Magazine point in the said location and a licence has been issued to that effect by the competent authority on 12-03-2010 under the Explosive Act and the Rules made thereunder. Earlier, the Assistant Director, Mines & Geology, Kurnool had accorded sanction for quarrying operations for extraction of road metal in Sy.No.485 of Bodhuvanipalli Village, Orvakal Mandal vide proceedings No.2770/M4/2004 dated 30-08-2004. As per the terms and conditions of the licence, the petitioner shall exhibit the stock books and records so as to enable the officers, who were authorized to inspect the stone crushing unit in accordance with the Explosive Rules,2008. While so, the Tahasildar, Kallur-2nd respondent without issuing any notice to the petitioner submitted a report to the 1st respondent-District Collector after seizing the stone crushing unit of the petitioner under a cover of panchanama dated 30.04.2010 stating that when she personally inspected the premises in question on 29-04- 2010, she found certain irregularities, such as records pertaining to the attendance register, conversion certificate for the usage of land for mining purpose, Explosive licence and Stock register maintaining for Explosives are not available and on enquiry she was revealed by one Akula Prasad, who is supervising the unit, that they are not maintaining any records for the purpose of inspection by the inspecting officials. Further on her enquiry, it came to know that the Magazine is also not being maintained properly and that they are getting the blasting material from Kurnool directly and that they are not using time maintaining and beet of tom-tom before going to blasting. Therefore, the attitude of the petitioner without maintaining stock register is highly irregular and against the Rules and Regulations under the Explosives Act,1884. Further during the enquiry, it was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner had encroached the Government land without any valid documents and purchased nearly Ac.18.00 of assigned land from 16 poor persons, who were assigned the government land and therefore the unit was seized after conducting a panchanama. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner before seizing the unit and, therefore, it is crystal clear that the 2nd respondent has violated the principle of Audi Alteram Partem. Therefore, in my considered view, that the order of the 2nd respondent-Tahsildr, Kallur vide proceedings in Rc.B.324/2010 dated 30-04-2010 shall be treated as a show cause notice and the petitioner shall furnish her explanation/objections to the show cause notice within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. On receipt of said explanation/objection, the 2nd respondent shall consider and pass appropriate final orders within three (3) weeks from thereafter. Till then, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to operate the stone crushing unit in question. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J Date: 05-05-2010 TSNR