IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17984 of 2008 Between: K. Rabi Venkatesan M/s. Venkatesh Enterprises 6, Shafee Mohammed Road, Chennai-600006. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Mines and Geology, 8th Floor, BRKR Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.N.SHOBA Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of certiorari to quash demand notice No.3246/Vg/2008, dated 14.07.2008 issued by respondent No.3. Heard Smt. N.Shoba, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for the respondents. By the impugned order, a sum of Rs.9,73,980/- is demanded towards purported ground “diﬀerent quantity of 2319 Mt., of Quartz was quarried unauthorisedly in the leased area”. To the show cause notice issued by respondent No.3, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 17.06.2008. Respondent No.3 by the impugned order rejected the said explanation by merely saying that the same is not satisfactory. The learned counsel for the petitioner questioned the impugned order on two grounds, namely, the order passed by respondent No.3 is totally a non-speaking order as the same has not dealt with the detailed reasons given by the petitioner against the proposed levy and that respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to issue such a show cause notice and pass the impugned order. As regards the first contention, the learned Government Pleader fairly conceded that respondent No.3 failed to give any reasons for rejecting the explanation of the petitioner. However, as regards the second contention, he relied on G.O.Ms.No.161, Industries and Commerce (Mines IV) Department, dated 24.03.1980 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, under which, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology is delegated with the powers exercisable under Sub-Sections (3) and (5) of Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. Even according to the learned Government Pleader, it is only the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, who has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings, and not respondent No.3. Hence, the impugned order of respondent No.3 is quashed. Liberty is given to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner, if he so desires. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th AUGUST, 2008. kvni