THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32041 of 2010 Date: 22.12.2010 Between: M/s. Transworld Garnet India Private Limited ..... Petitioner AND The Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy Counsel for Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the order dated 14.12.2010 of respondent No.2. I have heard Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents. The petitioner holds mining lease for quarrying garnet in Srikakulam District over an extent of 95.085 hectares at the confluence of Nagavalli river upto Balaramapuram Village of Srikakulam District for a period of thirty years from 24.06.2002 to 23.06.2032 subject to the provisions contained in the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’). Under the lease, the petitioner is permitted to process the beach sand to extract minerals consisting of ilmenite, garnet, rutile and other valuable minerals. In the course of its activity, the petitioner received a show-cause notice dated 22.11.2010 from respondent No.2, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner is indulging in illegal mining of beach sand mining i.e., garnet and ilmenite from the zeroyathy lands of Smt. Ippili Appanamma of Balaramapuram Village and that therefore, the petitioner was directed to explain the reasons why action should not be taken against it for the alleged illegal extraction of 13,760 MTs of beach sand. On receipt of said show-cause notice, the petitioner has addressed a letter on 02.12.2010 to respondent No.22, wherein it has sought for information with regard to the following aspects:- a. There is any beach sand mining on the lands of Ippilli Appanamma (as stated by you in your notice); b. The mining on the lands of Ippilli Appanamma is illegal (as stated in your notice); c. The mining on the lands of Ippilli Appanamma is done by us (as concluded in your notice); The petitioner has further stated that if information on the above aspects was earlier furnished, it would have been able to establish without any doubt the following:- a. We have no idea if Ippilli Appanamma is doing any mining on her lands. b. We have no connection with this Ippilli Appanamma. c. If any mining is being done by this Ippilli Appanamma, it is on her own account, and we have no idea or connection with the same. The petitioner has accordingly required the following details:- a. Copy of any Show Cause Notice issued to us earlier, calling upon us to show cause as to whether:- i. There is any beach sand mining on the lands of Ippilli Appanamma (as stated by you in your notice); ii. The mining on the lands of Ippilli Appanamma is illegal (as statedin your notice); iii. The mining on the lands of Ippilli Appannamma is done by us (as concluded in your notice); b. Copies of all documents on the basis of which you have concluded that:- i. 13,760 MTs of sand were excavated by us; ii. 3,162 MTs of Garnet were extracted by us; iii. 921.92 MTs of Ilmenite were extracted by us; iv. We have sold the above Garnet @ Rs.114/- per MT; v. We have sold the above Ilmenite @ Rs.3,000/- per MT. c. Copies of all documents empowering you to levy and recover such Penalty. By the impugned order dated 14.12.2010, respondent No.2 has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.32,05,608/- under Sections 5 and 21(5) of the Act (wrongly quoted as Rules in the order). At the hearing, Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is wholly unsustainable because neither the petitioner’s request for supply of the above noted information sought for in its letter dated 02.12.2010 was furnished to it nor the impugned order has contained the details sought for by the petitioner. He has submitted that the very show-cause notice itself was issued on the premise that the allegation that the petitioner has indulged in illegal mining in the zeroyathy lands belonging to private persons was already established. After hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has sought for the details to enable it to submit proper reply, vide its letter dated 02.12.2010. If respondent No.2 felt that such details were not relevant, he should have informed the same to the petitioner. Conversely, if the information sought for by the petitioner was relevant, the same should have been supplied to the petitioner to enable it to give an effective reply. Obviously, treating the petitioner’s letter dated 02.12.2010 as an explanation, respondent No.2 has made a cryptic observation in the impugned order that the petitioner’s explanation is not satisfactory. No reasons have been assigned by respondent No.2 in giving such a finding. As rightly pleaded by the petitioner, the allegation that it has carried on illegal mining and extracted minerals from the private lands needs to be first established and it is only thereafter that the quantity and the price thereof are required to be determined. Unless the petitioner is given sufficient opportunity to meet the allegation that it has carried on illegal mining, it cannot be saddled with the liability as has been done under the impugned order. On a careful consideration of the impugned order, I am of the opinion that respondent No.2 has not followed the fair procedure established by law before mulcting the petitioner with the liability. The impugned order suffers from serious infraction of the principles of natural justice and lack of proper reasons. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order dated 14.12.2010 of respondent No.2 is set aside and respondent No.2 is directed to furnish the details as sought for in the petitioner’s letter dated 02.12.2010. If respondent No.2 has reasons to believe that any of the details sought for by the petitioner are either not available with him or are irrelevant, he shall give reasons therefor before rejecting such information. Within three weeks of receipt of such information, the petitioner shall file its detailed explanation, wherein it is permitted to raise all legally permissible objections including the one relating to the jurisdiction of respondent No.2. On such filing explanation by the petitioner, respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass a speaking order in accordance with law. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.40735 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22nd December, 2010 GHN