M/S.Albasri Trading Company vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the matter should be remanded to the 3rd respondent (Divisional Mines and Geology Officer) for fresh consideration. The Court noted that the statement recorded during the inspection on 12.05.2025, which formed the basis for fastening liability on the petitioner, was given by the husband of the proprietrix. Consequently, the Court directed the 3rd respondent to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner detailing the alleged irregularities. After affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, the 3rd respondent is to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized that this entire exercise should be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The impugned order dated 25.06.2025 was set aside. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court provided a clear path for resolution.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Albasri Trading Company, represented by its Proprietor Bavaji Imambee, filed a writ petition challenging a Revised Demand Notice No. 394/MDL/2019 dated 25.06.2025, issued by the Divisional Mines and Geology Officer (Respondent No. 3). This notice levied a penalty of Rs. 10,27,161/- under Rule 26 of the AP Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The petitioner contended that the demand was made without issuing a show-cause notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The revenue argued that an enquiry was conducted on 12.05.2025, where the husband of the proprietrix admitted to irregularities, allegedly committed by a clerk without the petitioner's knowledge, leading to the finding of unauthorized transporting of black granite.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Revised Demand Notice No. 394/MDL/2019 dated 25.06.2025, levying a penalty of Rs. 10,27,161/-, is arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction, and violative of the principles of natural justice, particularly Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it was issued without a show-cause notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the demand notice was issued without a proper show-cause notice. Although a reply was submitted to a prior notice dated 22.05.2025, which sought specific documents, the impugned order was passed without affording a further opportunity of hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. Revenue's Contention: The revenue submitted that an enquiry was conducted on 12.05.2025, and a statement was recorded from the husband of the proprietrix, who admitted to irregularities. The revenue claimed that these irregularities were committed by a clerk without the petitioner's knowledge, but based on this admission, the petitioner was found to be engaged in unauthorized transporting of black granite.