IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 2511 of 2008 Between: M/s.Shiva Nirmala Granites, Prakashnagar Khammam, rep.by its Proprietor, P.Papachary, S/o.Kishore, aged 36 years, R/o.khammam ..... PETITIONER AND The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Khammam .....RESPONDENT 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 writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the letter No.289/MD-3/2005 dated 19.10.2007 issued by respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to record and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : ORDER Heard both sides. The Petitioner is a Granite, Cutting and Polishing Unit. A show cause notice dated 21.12.2005 was served upon the petitioner calling upon to show cause as to why action should not be taken for imposing the penalty of Rs.93,492/- under Rule 26 (3) (ii) of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The petitioner gave a reply on 12.1.2006 denying the allegations and requested an opportunity of personal hearing. It is alleged that without considering the said request of the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry, the respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 19-10-2007 asking the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.93,492/- towards normal seigniorage fee of Rs.15,582/- and penalty of Rs.78,410/-. The said proceedings are challenged in this writ petition contending, inter alia, that the impugned proceedings are ex facie illegal, apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice. Learned Government Pleader, who accepted notice for the respondent at the stage of admission, under instructions, stated that as a matter of fact, the impugned proceedings were preceded by a demand notice dated 24.01.2006 and therefore the allegations of the petitioner are unfounded. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the same and submitted that no such demand was ever served on the petitioner. Even otherwise, a copy of the demand notice dated 24.1.2006, produced by the learned Government Pleader, shows that the said demand, under which it was concluded that since the petitioner failed to produce documentary evidence for the difference quantity of granite, he was liable to pay five times penalty along with normal seigniorage fees, was made without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice. As a matter of fact except referring to the show cause notice dated 21.12.2005, the demand notice dated 24.01.2006, which appears to have been made in a computerized format, did not even mention the date of service of such notice on the petitioner and whether any explanation was received from him. Even the blanks in the format meant for furnishing the material particulars were not filled up and the demand was made without assigning any reasons in support of the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to pay five times penalty. In the circumstances, the demand notice dated 24.1.2006 which was made mechanically without application of mind to the material on record, on the face of it, is in violation of the principles of natural justice, and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the demand notice dated 24.01.2006 and the impugned proceedings dated 19.10.2007, are hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the respondent to pass appropriate orders afresh following due process of law. No costs. ___________ 03-07-2008 rkk