M/s. G. lnfra Projects Limited v. 'I . The State of Telangana

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Demand Notice No.972|Q112015 dated. 2010812O24 issued by the Respondent No.4 pending disposal of the writ petition in the interests of justice. |.A.NO:2 OF 2024 Between:

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary (Mines), lndustries and Commerce Department at Secretariat, Hyderabad 500004. 2. The Director of ttr'lines and Geology,, H.No. 5-9-22, Flat No. 203 and 204,2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Shapurwadi, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad 500029.

3. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Warangal Region at Warangal. 4. The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, lntegrated District Office Complex, ll Floor, Room No. S-10, Siricilla Town, Dist. Rajanna Siricilla. .....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND Y. Chandra lvlohan Rao, S/o Venkateshwar Rao, Aged 50 years, Occ ; Business, Fl/o Door No.01-056/1 1, Conton Park, Petbasheerab:id, Suchitra Junction, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated:11 .O9.2024, in W.P. No.25'83 of 2024 and also to dismiss the writ petition in the interest of Justice. i.A.NO:3 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 1 5 1 CPC praying that in the c ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoLrr: may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 4 to issue dispatch permits to the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI T.V.RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR MINES AND GEOI_OGY W.P.NO: 25651 OF 2024 Between: M/s Srinrvasa Stone Crusher, Represented by its Proprietor S Srinivas, S/o Ayyappa, Aged about 58 years, Rl/o H.No.3-75, Jajapur Village, Narayanpet fuiandal, Narayanpet District (Erstwhile Mahabubnagar District; .....PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Set;retary, lndustries and Commerce Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyd :rabad.

2. Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. Deputy Director of [\/ines and Geology, Nizamabad. 4- Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Narayanpet, lJarayanpet District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Demand Notice No.'1995/QL/2003, dated 2811212023 issued by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Narayanpet is wholly illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 1 4 and 19 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently declare that the petitioner is not liable for payment of the amount as demanded in the said Demand Notice, dated 28t12t2023. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Demand Notice No.1995/QL/2003, daled 2811212023 issued by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Narayanpet. |.A.NO:2 OF 2024 Between: 'l . The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, lndustries and Commerce Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Nizamabad. 4. Assistant Dir.ector of Mines and Geology, Narayanpet, Narayanpet District. .....PETITIONERS/RESOPONDENTS AND M/s Srinivasa Stone Crusher, Represented by its Proprietor S Srinivas, S/o Ayyappa, Aged about 58 years, Rl/o H.No.3-75, Jajapur Village, Narayanpet fvlandal, Narayanpet District (Erstwhile tvlahabubnagar District) ....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated:18.09.2024, passed in V1'.P. No.25651 of 2024 and also to dismiss the writ petition in the interest of Justice:. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KIRTHI TEJA KONDAVEETI Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR MINES AND GEOLTJGY W.P.NO:26117 OF 2024 Between: M/s. Chemanthi Stone Crusher, Rep. by its Proprietor G. Ramchander Rao, S/o Rajeshwar Rao, aged 64 years Occu. Business R/o H.No. 1-37, Oblapur (PK) Village, Mandal. Thangallapalli, Dist. Rajanna Siricilla. .....PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal S;ecretary (Mines), lndustries and Commerce Department at Secretariat, l-lyderabad 500004. 2. The Director of Mines and Geology, H.No. 5-9-22, Flat No. 203 and 204,2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Shapunradi, Adarsh Nar;ar, Hyderabad 500029.

3. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Warangal l*:gion at Warangal. 4. The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, lntegrated Dislrict Office Comptex, ll Floor, Room No. S-'10, Siricilla Town, Dist.Rajanna Siricilla. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF TVANDAN/US declaring the Demand Notir;e No.3SB/e1/2017 dated.1210812024 issued by the Respondent No.4 as illegat, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and also violative of principles c,f natural justice and consequently set aside the Demand Notice No.35BlQ11201Z dated. 12lOBl2O24 issued by the Respondent No.4 in the interests of justice. I.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou.t may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Demand Notice No.358lQ112017 dated.12lOBl2O24 issued by the Respondent No.4 pending disposal of the writ petition in the interests of justice. |.A.NO:2 OF 2024 Between: 'l . .The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary (lMines), lndustries and Commerce Department at Secretariat, Hyderabad 500004. 2. The Director of Mines and Geology, H.No. 5-9-22, Flat No. 2O3 and 204,2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Shapurwadi, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad 500029.

3. The Deputy Director oflrlines and Geology, Warangal Region at Warangal. 4. The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, lntegrated District Office Complex, ll Floor, Room No. S-10, Siricilla Town, Dist.Rajanna Siricilla. .....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND M/s. Chemanthi Stone Crusher, Rep. by its Proprietor G. Ramchander Rao, S/o Rajeshwar Rao, aged 64 years Occu. Business R/o H.No.1-37, Oblapur (PK) Village, Mandal. Thangallapalli, Dist. Rajanna Siricilla. ....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders Dt:2110912024 passed in WP.No. 26117 of 2024. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI T.V.RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY W.P.NO: 26123 OF 2024 Between: [\rlls. Chemanthi Stone Crusher, Rep. by its Proprietor G. Ramchander Rao, S/o Rajeshwar Rao, aged 64 years, Occ ; Business, Rl/o H.No.1-37, Oblapur (PK) Village, Mandal. Thangallapalli, Dist. Rajanna Siricilla. .....PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary (14,1-"9,. lndustries and Corimerce Department at Secretariat, lly'derabad 500004. 2. The Director of Mines and Geology, H.No. 5-9-22, Flat NIo. 203 and 204,2nd Floor, Irily Home Sarovar Plaza, Shapurwadi, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad 500029.

3. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Warangal Region at Warangal. 4. The Asst. Director of lvlines and Geology, lntegrated District Office Complex, ll Floor, Room No. S-10, Siricilla Town, Dist. Rajanna lliricilla. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lnCia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, thr: High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly'one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAIVUS declaring the Demand Nolice No.3209/Q1/2008 dated.12lO8l2024 issued by the Respondent No.4 as illr:gal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violatrve of the provlsions of Mines and Mine'als (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and also violative of principles o1' natural justice and consequently set aside the Demand Notice No.3209/Q1/2008 dated. 1210812024 issued by the Respondent No.4 in the interests of justice. l.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the oircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co:rt may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Demand Notice No.3209/Q1/2008 dated. 12-08- 2024 issued by the Respondent No.4 pending disposal of the writ petition in the interests of justice. |.A.NO:2 OF 2024 Between:

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal llecretary (Mines), tndustries and Commerce Department at Secretariat, llyderabad 500004

2. The Director of Mines and Geolo-gy' H'No' 5.-9"-22 Flat No 203 and 204' 2nd ' Floor, My Home sao'ili"pi-'i''-dfripurwaoi' Adaish Nagar' Hvderabad

3. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology' Warangal Region at Warangal' 4. The Asst. Director of t\ilines and Geology-., lntegrated District Oflice Complex' - li'i6;;, ii;"r, r'r". s-iii, siriclita ro*n:'oist Rajanna siricilla' ....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND Iir'l/s. chemanthi stone crusher, Rep. by its Proprietor G Ramchander Rao' s/o '6!ti' euln"ts' F/o H No'1-37' oblapur (PK) Raieshwar Rao, aged 64';;';, Viliage, fvlanAal. Thangallapalli, Dist Ra1anna 5lrrcrrra' RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Petition Under Sectibn 15'l CPC praying tn't *" circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated:2'l 'Og '2024 ' passed in W P No 26123 of 2024 and also to dismiss the Writ Petition in the interest of Justice' 't Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI T'V'RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR MINES-AND GEOLOGY W.P.NO: 26394 0 F 2024 Between: lvl/s. Shambhavi Stone Crushers, Rep by its tr/lanaging Partner Mr' Miryala Bhasker S/o Raiaiah, Ased 42 yeri;'"d;."6rli'r"s.-nyo i.No.3 83/2' opp. High School, dJpriillirriv riirJg", t\i"no"ur'-r-h*gallipattv Dist Rajanna Siricilla' .....PETtTIONER AND 1 2 3 4 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary (Mines)' tndustries and Commerce o""iJ,ir"""t ri jlcretariat, Hyderabad 500004' The Director of Mines and Geology' H'No' 5-9-22' Flat,No 203 and 2O4' Znd iff iilffi J'SiiJ"liFr'"iX, rY#pi'*;Ji' noiisn Nasar' Hvderabad 500029. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology' Warangal Region at Warangal' TheAsst.DirectorofMlnesandGeology-,.lntegratedDistrictofficecomplex' ri' i:;;:il;;li;. -s-i o, si*iiL lownl-oist Rajanna siricilla' .....RESPONDENTS PetitionUnderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflnrjiirprayingthatinthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleasedtoissueaWrit'orderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureof WRIToFMANDAIuUSdeclaringtheDemandNoticeNc,.,l556/Q1/2016dated. 31t07 t2O24 issued by the Respondent No 4 as illegtal' arbitrary' without jurisdiction, violative of the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and also violative of principles :l natural justice and consequentlySetasidetheDemandNoticeNo.l55610lt2o,l6daled.3ll0Tl2o24 issued by the Respondent No.4 in the interests of justice' t.A.NO:l OF 2024 PetitionUnderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthe(;ircumstancesstatedin theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighcourtmaybepleasedto suspend the operation of the Demand Notice No 1556/Q'1/2016 dated' 3lloTt2o24issuedbytheRespondentNo.4pendingdisposalofthewritpetitionin the interests of justice. t.A.NO :2OF 2024 Between:

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary (l\4'l^e^s)'. lndustries and Commerce'O?,pirt.""t at Secretariat, Hyderabad 500004. 2. The Director of lvlines and Geology, H No' .5-9.-2.2' Flat \o' 203 and 2O4' 2nd - iio"o; My-Home sarorai-prrii, 56"p'*'di, Adarsh r\agar' Hyderabad 500029.

3. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Waranga Region at Warangal' 4. The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology-,- lnte{rated District office complex' - Siricilla Town,-Dist Rajanna Siiricilla' -s-lo' lf il;;;, i{;, r.ro AND M/s. Shambhavi Stone Crushers, Rep. by its Managing Partner Mr' Miryala Btrasker "H.No.3-83/2, Opp. High School, S/o Raiaiah, Aged 42 y"r;;'O;4.-Eusiness Ryo 6;p;ia;;;lii Vliiag", t\iandar. Thansallapallv Dist' Rajanna !)iricilla ....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Petition Under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated:24.09.2024, passed in W.p.No.26394 ol 2024 and also to dismiss the writ petition in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI T.V.RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY W.P.NO:27265 OF 2024 Between: tVl/s. Lucky Stone Quarry, Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri tvl. Thirupathi Babu, S/o Laxmi Narsaiah: g9ed 1q years, Occ;Business, Rl/o HNo.'l-76, Venkatapui Village, Mandal Yellareddypet, Dist Rajanna Siricilla. .....PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary (Mines), lndustries and Commerce Department at Secretariat, Hyderabad 500004. 2. The Director of Mines and Geology, H.No. 5-9-22, Flat No. 203 and 204,2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Shapunirradi, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad 500029.

3. The Deputy Director of lt/ines and Geology, Warangal Region at Warangal. 4. The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, lntegrated District Office Complex, ll Floor, Room No. S-10, Siricilla Town, Dist Rajanna Siricilla. .....RESPONDENTS Petilion Under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF IVIANDAI\IUS declaring the Demand Notice No.240lQ112017 dated 2Ol 0812024 issued by the Respondent No.4 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and also violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the Demand Notice No.2401Q112017 dated 2010812024 issued by the Respondent No-4 in the interests of justice. _ |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoL rt may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Demand Notice No.240 le1l2oi 7 dated: 2olo\l2o24 issued by the Respondent No.4 pending disposal of the writ petition in the interests of justice. |.A.NO:2 OF 2024 Between: '1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its principal Ser;retary (Mines), Industries and Commerce Department at Secretariat, Hy<lerabad' 500004. 2. The Director of l\rlines and Geology, H.No. 5-9-22, Flat lrlo. 203 and 2O4,2nd f!-o^o1.VV Home Sarovar Plaza, Shapun,uadi, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad 500029.

3. The Deputy Director of [Vlines and Geology, Warangal Flegion at Warangal. 4. The Asst. Director of Mine^s and Geology, lntegrated Di:;trict Office Complex, -Dist ll Floor, Room No. S-10, Siricilla Town, Rajanna Sir-ic;illa. .....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND M/s. Lucky Stone Quarry,, Rep. by its lVanaging partner Sri tV Laxmi Narsaiah, aged 38 years, Occ ; Business-, Rl/o H.No.1-7 Mandal Yellareddypet, Dist Rajanna Siricilla. . Thirupathi Babu, S/o 6 Venkatapur Village, .....RESPCINIDENT/PETITIoNER Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the cir:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders Dt 0111012024 passed in W.p.No. ,21,265 of 2O24. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI T.V.RAMANA RAO Counsel forthe Respondents : Gp FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY W.P.NO: 27298 OF 2024 Between: M/s. Sri Laxmi lndustries Pvt. Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri. Gurram Sathaiah S/o Chinna Mallaiah, aged 72 years Occ ; Business, Rl/o H.No.5-77, Chinthaltana, [Vandal. Thangallapalli, Dist. Rajanna Siricilla. .....PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary (Mines), lndustries and Commerce Department at Secretariat, Hyderabad 500004. 2. The Director of Mines and Geology, H.No. 5.9-22"'Flat No. 203 and 204,2nd Floor, Ivly Home Sarovar Plaza, Shapurwadi, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad 500029. 3- The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Warangal Region at Warangal. 4. The Asst. Director of lVlines and Geology, lntegrated District Office Complex, ll Floor, Room No. S-10, Siricilla Town, Dist. Rajanna Siricilla. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF IVANDAIVUS declaring the Demand Notice No.748lQ112016 dated. 06- 08-2024 issued by the Respondent No.4 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of the provisions of fVlines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and also violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the Demand Notice No.74BlQ112016 dated. 06-08-2024 issued by the Respondent No.4 in the interests of iustice. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the operation of the Demand Notice No.748lQ112016 dated. 06-08-2024 issued by the Respondent No.4 pending disposal of the writ petition in the interests of justice. |.A.NO:2 OF 2024 Between:

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal liecretary (Mines)' lndustries and Commerce Department at Secretariat, lllrderabad 500004. 2. The Director of Mines and Geology, H.No. 5-9-22, Flal lJo. 203 and 2O4,2nd Floor, It/y Home Sarovar Plaza, Shapururradi, Adarsh l'Jagar, Hyderabad 500029.

3. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Warangal Region at Warangal. 4. The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, lntegrated Eistrict Office Complex, ll Floor, Room No. S-'10, Siricilla Town, Dist. Rajanna Siricilla. .....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND IV/s. Sri Laxmi lndustries Pvt. Limited, Rep. by its Managirrgl Director Sri. Gurram Sathaiah S/o Chinna tvlallaiah, aged 72 years Occ ; Business, Rl/o H.No.5-77' Chinthaltana, Mandal. Thangallapalli, Dist. Rajanna Siricilla ..... RES F,C]N DENT/PETITION ER Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Corrl may be pleased to vacate the lnterim Order dt.01 .10.2024 passed in l.A No.'l of 2024 in W.P No.27298 of 2O24 in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI T.V.RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY W.P.NO: 33461 OF 2024 Between: M/s. SreeVarahi lnfra and Developers, Having its Corporate Office at H. No.2-3-44, Uppal Main Road, Hyderabad, Telangana State-500039 Represented by its Partner, Mr.Kistaram Shekar Reddy. .....PETITIONER AND '1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Having office at Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Mahabutrragar, Mahabubnagar District. 5 4 The Director of Mines and Geology, My Home Sarovar Plaza, H.No. 5-922, Flat No. 203 and 2O4,2nd Floor, ShahpurWadi, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500063. The Deputy Director, Mines and Geology Department, tt/y Homg S3rqvgr Plaza, H.Nb. 5-922,Flat No.203 and204,2nd Floor, ShahpurWadi, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500063.

5. The Assistant Director, Itr'lines and Geology Department, Mahabubnagar District.

6.. The Tahsildar, Balanagar Village, Balanagar Mandal Mahabubnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or orders more particularly one of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.5 in issuing the demand notice no. BB31E1l2O24 dated 05/1 1/2024 without considering the reply dated 2911012024 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of lndia. i.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass interim order thereby grating stay of operation of the demand notice no. 883tE'll2}24 dated 05/1 112024 issued by the Respondent no.5 until pending disposal of the main writ petition- i.A.NO:2 OF 2024 Between:

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Having office at Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector and District lvlagistrate, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar' District.

3. The Director of Mines and Geology, [VIy Home Sarovar Plaza, H.No. 5-922' Flat No.203 and 204,2nd Floor, ShahpurWadi, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500063.

4. The Deputy Director, Mines and Geology Department, fuly Home Sarovar Plaza, H.No. 5-922, Flat No. 203 and 2O4,2nd Floor, IihahpuMadi, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500063.

5. The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Departmer,t, [\Iahabubnagar District.

6. The Tahsildar, Balanagar Village, Balanagar Mandal lvlahabubnagar District .....PETITIOt{ERS/RESPONDENTS AND M/s. SreeVarahi lnfra and Developers, Having its Corporate Office at H. No.2-3-44, Uppal Main Road, Hyderabad, Telangana State-500039 Represented by its Partner, [\/r.Kistaram Shekar Reddy. ,....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated: 28.'1 1.2024, in W.P. No. 33,16'1 o'f 2024 and also to dismiss the writ petition in the interest of Justice. |.A.NO:3 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour: may be pleased to lmplead the Proposed Respondent no.7 herein as Responlont No. 7 in the main writ petition no. 33461 of 2024 for proper adjudication of ther r;ase. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI BHARATH REDDY BOMMINENI Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR MTNES AND GEOI-OGY W.P.NO: 34020 OF 2024 Between: M/s. Hyma Developers Private Limited,, Having its Registr:red Office at H.No.1- 123,8th Floor, Block-3, My Home Hub,Miyapur, Hyderabad 500 081. Rep.by its Authorised Signatory. AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary. lrdustries and Commerce (lr/ines) Department, Telangana Secretarial, -lyderabad. .....PETITIONER

2. The Director of l/ines and Geology, Telangana State, Hyderabad. 3. The Deputy Director of tvlines and Geology, Hyderabad. 4. The Assistant Director of lirlines and Geology, Ranga Reddy District' .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue such appropriate writ, order or direction more so particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the Demand Notice No.5661/Civil construction/2024, dated 25-11-2024 issued by the 4th respondent as arbitrary, illegal, non-speaking and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the impugned Demand Notice No.5661/Civil constru clionl2024, daled 2S-11-2024 issued by the 4th respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition by this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI HARI SREEDHAR Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY W.P.NO : 15607 OF 2024 Between: 1 2 M/s Raiapushpa Asset Management LLP, having its office al 2-58,6th Floor, nriroJiripJ 'Summit, Nanalkramguda, Hyderabad, represented by its Auihbrised Signatory Sri P.Jayapal Rao Sri P.Jayapal Rao, S/o. Sri P.Malhal nqg ggqg about 66 years, Occ S-ervice, Ryo. G5; Solitaire Apartments, Shilpa Hills' Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500084 TG .....PETITIONERS AND 1 State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary,. Department of lndustries and Commerc6 (Mines and Geology) Secretariat Hyderabad'

2. The Director. Department of Mines and Geology My Honre Sarover Plaza, Flat Nos.203 and 2O4 H No.5-922, Shapurwadi Adarsha ragar, Secretariat Road Hyderabad 500 063 TG.

3. The Assistant Director, Department of Mines and Geology S-10, 2nd Floor, lntegrated District Office Complex, Kongarkalan, Adballer, lbrahimpatnam, Rangareddy 501 510 TG.

4. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, BIock A, District Commercial Complex Tarnaka, Secunderabad 500 017 TG. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnrlia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly' one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing Show Cause Notice No.2B'1 7/Civil Construction/2O24 daled 20.02.2024 and the consequent demand notice No.2817lCivil Constructionsl2t)i,.4 dated 20.O5.2024 for unauthorized excavation of Rough Stone and Gravr:l in Plot No.2 in Sy No.239/P and 24OlP. Neopolis Layout situated at Kokap,:t Village, Gandipet Mandal, Rangareddy District as being arbitrary, illegal an j u n co nstitutiona I and violative of principles of natural justice. LA.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim Suspension Order daled 211AO12024 maie in lA.No. 1 of 2024 in the above W.P.No. 15607 of 2024 until further Orders, in ihe interest of justice. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pteased to suspend the operation of demand notice No.2B17lCivil Co r structions/2024 dated

20.05.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent, pending disposal or'the Writ Petition. |.A.NO:2 OF 2024 Between:

1. State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of lndustries and Commerce (Mines and Geology) Secretariat Hyderabad.

2. The Director, Department of Mines and Geology My Home Sarover Plaza, Flat Nos.203 and 204 H No.5-922, Shapurwadi Adarshanagar, Secretariat Road Hyderabad 500 063 TG.

3. The Assistant Director, Department of Mines and Geology S-10, 2nd Floor, lntegrated District Office Complex, Kongarkalan, Adbatla, lbrahimpatnam, Rangareddy 501 510 TG.

4. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Block A, District Commercial Complex Tamaka, Secunderabad 500 017 TG. .....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND

1. M/s Rajapushpa Asset Management LLP, having its office at 2-58, 6th Floor, Rajapushpa Summit, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad, represented by its Authorised Signatory Sri P.Jayapal Rao

2. Sri P.Jayapal Rao, S/o. Sri P.Malhal Rao aged about 66 years, Occ. Service, Fl/o. G5, Solitaire Apartments, Shilpa Hills, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500084 TG .....RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the lnterim orders issued on 21-06-2024 in WP.No. 1 5607 ot 2024 and pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition. |.A.NO:3 OF 2024 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim suspension order dated: 21-06-2024 made in l.A. No. 1 ot 2024 in the above WP No. 15607 of 2024 until further orders, in the interest of justice. LA.NO:4 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci-cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim suspension order dated 21 .06.2024 mace in LA.No.1 of 2024 in the above W.P. No. 15607 of 2024, until further orders in the. interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.VENKAT REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY W.P.NO: 27699 OF 2024 Between: Smt. S. Bhagyalaxmi, Wo. Ravinder Reddy, aged abc,ut 49 years, R/o Peddavangara Village, Kodakandla [\/andal, Warangal District 5]6 317. ....PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by it's Secretary ( Mines ,, 3rd Floor, B.R. Ambedkar Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad 5C0 004.

2. The Director of f\rlines and Geology, H. No. 5-922, Flat I'lo's 203 and 204,2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Shapur Wadi, Adarsh ltJagar, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad 500 029.

3. The Deputy Directorof lvlines and Geology, Warangal Flegion H.No.1-9-6'16/ 12, 'lst Floor, Vidyuth Nagar, Road No. 2, Near Vishnu;rriya Garden, Hunter Road, Hanmakonda , Warangal Urban District 506 001 .

4. The Asst. Director of [\/ines and Geology, Dharmakanche., Jangaon, Telangana 506 167. ....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lncia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the liigh Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more so one in tht: nature of Mandamus declaring the issue of the Show Cause Notice No. 27'15 I Q I 2009 dt. 08-05-2024 and the consequential demand Notice No. 2715 I Q / 2009 dl. 19-06-2024 issued by the 4th Respondent herein with regard to the Quarry Lei:se area legally and validly held by the Petitioner in an extent of 2-00 Hectares in Sy. No. 629/1 of Palakurthy Village and I\/andal, Jangaon District. as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violation of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals ( Development and Regulation ) Act, 1957 and consequenfly set aside the same, in the interest of mineral development, law and justice. l.A.NO:'l OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to kindly suspend the operation of the Show Cause Notice.No. 2715 / e / 2009 dt. 08-05-2024 and the consequential demand Notice No. 2715 le/ 20Og dt. 19-06- 2024 issued by the 4th Respondent herein with regard to the euarry Lease area legally and validly held by the Petitioner in an extent of 2-00 Hectares in Sy. No. 62911 of Palakurthy Village and Mandal, Jangaon District, failing which it may result in irreparable loss and hardship to the interest of the petitioner. |.A.NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: 1 2 The State o_f Telangana, Rep. by it's Secretary ( lr/ines ), 3rd Floor, B.R. Ambedkar Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad 500 OO4. The Director of Mines and Geology, H. No. 5-922, Flat No's 203 and 2O4,2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Shapur Wadi, Adarsh Nagar, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad 500 029. The Deputy Djrector of Mines and Geology, Warangal Region H.No.1-9-6.16 / 1 2, '1st. Floor, Vidyuth Nagar, Road No. 2, Near Vishnupriya Garden, Hunter Road, Hanmakonda , Warangal Urban District 506 00'1 . 4 The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Dharmakancha, Jangaon, Telangana 506 167. .....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND 9rl S Bhagyalaxmi, Wo. Ravinder Reddy, aged about 49 years, R/o. Peddavangara Village, Kodakandla Mandal, Warangal District 506 3t 7. ....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated. 04.10.2024 in W.P. No 27699 of 2024 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI PANNALA SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR MINES AND GEOI-OGY The Court made the following COMMON ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION Nos.l2748 16550 23068 25183 25651 26117 26123,26394, 27265.27298.33461 & 34020 ()F 202,1ALONG WITH W.P. Nos.l5607 AND 27699 OF 2024 COMMON ORDER: Heard Dr. Donthireddy Venkat Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Gouridevi Krishnaiah, Mr. Hari Sreedhar, leamed counsel representing Mr. A. Santhosh Kumar, Mr. Ravi Kondar ecti. leamed Senior Counsel representing Mr. Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, N4r. B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr- Bharat Ileddy Bommineni, Mr. l'.V. Ramana Rao, Mr. Pannala Srinir''as. leamed counsel for the respective petitioners and learned (lovernrncnt Plcader lor Mines and Geology appearing on behalf of the respondents

2. Ll.s involved in all these matters except W.P. Nos. [5(107 and 27 699 of 2024 is one and the same. Therefore, they were heard togcthcr and are being disposed of by way of this common order. W.P. No. I 17'18 ol 2024 is the leading case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinalter referred to as arrayed in W.P. No. 12748 o12024.

3. All these writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners to declare the action of respondent No.4 - Assistant Director of Mines and j ) (r..1 \\ P ]'l(i 12748 ol l0:l.l & batch Geology (hereirrafter AI)M&G) in issuing demanri notices as illegal, arbitrary and consequentlv to set aside the sanrr. on the following grounds: Ilespondent No.4 has issued show-cause nolioes stating that the petitroncrs excavated and transported grar,:l r.rnauthorizedly w,hich is in r.iolation of Rule - 26 (2) of the 'I'clangana Srate Minor Mineral (loncession Rules, 1966 (1br short 'TSMMC Rules, 1966') and accordingly directed tlrern to show cause within fi lieen ( I 5 ) days as to why action sho -rld not be taken fbr the respcctive quantities of gravcl excavat,l(l and tr.ansported unauthorizedly. or else necessary action wor.rld be taken as per the Rules in fbrce ii. On receipt of' thc said show-cause nolii:cs, some of the petitioners sr-rbrnitted their replies stating thar cluring inspection, there u'as no excavation and transport:rt iorL ol' gravel noticed. No mcn and rnachinery were lbund at the site inspection. No uotice was scn,ed upor the petitioners Inspection was not carried out in the presence of any rcpl'escnlxtiVC ol' tl're pctitioner. The allce:cl irrspection and Ttttnchan,rnttt corrducted behind their bacl... is contra[v to kl I W.P No 127{8 ol 202J & belch Circular Memo No.40454/Ri-l/201l, dated 28.02.2012. It is in violation of principles olnatural justice. Itl. Without considering thc said replies/explanations, respondent No.4 had issued demand notices directing the petitioners to pay amounts mentioned therein for illegal excavation and tlanspoftation of gravel from the lands mentioned therein 'l'herefore, issuance of impugned demand notices is arbitrarl'. illegat, in violation of principles of natural j ustice and procedurc laid down under TSMMC Rules, 1966 and also thc principle laid down by this Court and Apex Court. Therefore, the saure are liable to be set aside lv. Whereas, W.P. Nos. 15607 and 27699 of 2024 are filed to dcclare the action of Assistant Director in issuing show-cause notices and the consequential demand notices as illegal more or less with the aforesaid contentions. The only diff'erence is that they have challenged the show cause notices also. Whereas, in the other r.vrit pelitions the challenge is only to the dentand notices and there is no challenge to the show cause notices. I (i_.J \\ l) \o l]7.11i oal0ll & balch

4. 'fhe respondents filed counter denying thr ,:ontentions ol the pctitioners on thc lollorving grounds fhe demand noticc issued by respondent No.:l is within the ambit ol Rtrlesl Respondent No.4 is having jurisdiction ancl authority to issue derrand notice under I'MMC Rules, 1966: iii. On consideration ol' explanations subrnittcrl by some of the petitioners and non-submission of cxplanation bv some of the petitioners despite receipt of show cause notic()s. 4'r' respondent Assistant [)irector has issued demand noticcs: lv. The office of respondent No.4 inspected ancl sLrrveyed the illegal qualrying ol-gravel. Local cnquiry and panchttnLtnzr revealed that tl-re petitioners conducted illcgal quarrying. '[he petitioners have alten]ative rernedies ol' prefi'ning appeal befbre the l)irector r;f Mines & Geology, Hvder.abad under Rule - 35 of l'SI\4MC Itules, I9(r(r and re',,ision pctitions before the Go'u emr.nent under Rule 35A of' the said Rules against the demand notices. Without availing the said remedies, the pctitioners tlled thc preseut ri,rit petitions. l (I-.J WP No 127.18 of20l.{ & batch vt. There is no violatior-r of principles of natural justice and procedure laid down under the Rules, in issuing show-cause notices/demand notices as alleged by the petitioners. vlt. In the F ederal Structure of India. the State Governments are the owners of minerals located within their respective boundaries. As per entry at Sl.No.23 of List - II (State List) to the Conslitution of India, 'Regulation of mines and mineral development subject ttr the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and development under thc control of the Union'. As per entry at St.No.54 of List - I (Central List), 'regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest'. ix) As per entry at Sl.No.54 of List - I, the Central Government has framed Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. 1957 (for shor-t 'MMDR Act and under Sub-Section (1-A) (g) of Section - l5 of the Act confers powers to the State Govemment to fix and collect rent, royalty, f'ee, dead rent, fines or other charges in respect of rninor minerals and the time within which and the rnanncr in rvhich these shall be payable. Based on Section - l5 ol 6 (t I r\ l l. (, l]718 ofl0l4 & batch the MMDIT Act, all the State Govemrnents ha.,e' tiarned their olr,n Rules for regulating the grant of quarrv leascs, rnining leases or othcr n-rineral concessions in respect of minor rnine lals including the composite State of Andhra Pradesh in tl e narne of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1966. Aftcr bilurcation ol the State, the State of Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.:j5, Industries and Cornrnerce (Mines.l) Departmcnt. dated 2(r.()1,.-10 l-5, adopted the A.P. Minor Mineral Rules. 196(r, rr,hich sl-rall (ftreln to have come into tbrce w.e.f. 02.06.2024 x) Rule - 2(r o1- the Rules, contemplates penaltl for unauthorized quarryulg xi) State (iovernment yide G.O.Ms.No.64i c,f Industries & Commerce (M.lV) Depaftment, dated 27. I 1 . 1980 autl'rorized certain Olllcers which includes ADM & G. t,r recover minerals unlawlully raised under Rules - 26 (2) of TSI\,1\4C Rules. 1966. The Government instructions elllpower the Assistant Director ol' Mines & (ieology, to collect the penalty fronr rh: violators ol the Rules. Thc' same \\,as conflrmed bv this Couft in L Venkateshwar Rao v. M/s. Singareni (lolleries Co. Ltd.r 199-l (l) /\l I l9(,rlr il ) 7 KLJ vv P No l27JB of 201.1& barch hotding that Rule - 26 (3) (ii) is not ultra vires and the powers of the State Government is not arbitrary or unreasonable

5. FINDING AND ANALYSIS OF THE COURT In the tight of the atbresaid rival submissions, the following points arose lor consideration ol this Court: - i) Whether ADM&G havc jurisdiction to issue demand notices invoking his power under Rule 26 of the I'SMMC Rulcs. 1966. on the allegation ol' unauthorized cxcavation and transportation of gravel? ii) Whctlrer ADM&G lollosed the procedurc laid down under the said Rulcs and principlcs of natural .iustice in issuing irnpugned dcrnand noticcs'? Points:-

6. The statutory fiamework goveming the regulation of minor minerals stems lrom Section l5 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 ( lor short, 'MMDR Act'), which empowers the Statc Govemments tci fiame rules for regulating minor minerals, including the levy ol rent, royalty, seigniorage fee, and penalties. Accordingly, thc erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rutes, 1966, adopted by Telangana under G.O'Ms'No'55, dated 26.08.2015, fbrm rhe stalurory basis of the present demand notices. l:: .r ll7.1S(il 2021&barrh \\ '\r

7. Rule 26 of the'I'SMMC l{ules, 1966 providcs that unauthorized excavation or trarlspoftation of minerals attracts a penrlty up to ten times the normal seigniorage f-ee, in addition to recovery o1 the f'ee itselL This Rule is reinfbrced by G.O.Ms.No.643, dated - 7.1 1.1980, which empowers the ADM&G to lerry such penalties antl ecovet amounts Thus. the ADM&G is vested with .lurisdictional authority to issue such demand noticcs

8. Rule 26 of the'ISMMC Rules 1966 is relerrrtrt and the satne is extracted below:- Rule 26- Penalty for unauthorized quarryinl; (l) I1' an1. person carries on quarrying ol.rcr rtions or transpons minor nrinerals in contravention olthes, rrrles. ht- shall he liablc to pay as pcnalty. such cnhanced s( rgniorasc f'ee togethcr with asscssments as ma)' be imposcil bv an Officcr nominatcd hv thc f)ircctor of Mines aud Cie rl.rc\' .(2)\\lhenever any person raiscs or transports mino tttitterals without an! lawlul authoritl. such mincrals mav lre s,:ized br an Ol'liccr nominated by thc [)irector oI Nlines an( ( icolog\ in this behalf in addition to the imposition of tlrc ;renaltv under sub-rule ( I ) :Providcd that in no case, the perrrrltr s)rall exccccl Iten timcs I the nonnal scigniorage l'e e anil tltc lease or pcrmit alrcadt granted lra), at tlic discrcti, Il oI thc Deputr l)irector- be liable to bc terminat.'d or canc! llL'd (3) (i) For the purposc of ascertaining the pr sitiou ol- pat'nrcnt of Mincral Revenuc due to thc (iovcntnr -'r't or tbr anl othcr purpose under thesc rules. the person rLLrthorized rundel sub-rulc (2) may (a)entcr irnd inspcct anl prerlisesi 9 }.t .J u P No ll7l8 ol 202l & ba(ch (b)survcy arnd takc lncasurenrcrrts: (c)u'eigh. mcasure or take measurements of stocks ol' minerals: (d)cramine any document- book. register or rccord in the posscssion or po\rcr of an-,- persou haYing the control of. or connected with any mineral including the processed rnineral and placc marks ol identilication thercon and take cxtracts from. or make copies of such documcnt. book. register or record: and (e)order the production of anv such documcnt. book. register, record as is referred in CIause (d) (ii)11'no docurncntary prool- is produccd in tokcn of having paid the mineral rerenue duc to thc Govcmment hy any pcrson who used or consunted or in possession of any mineral including thc proccssed nrineral, he shall notwithstanding an)-thing contained in sub-rule (l) be liable to pay Iflve tinres I ol thc nonnal seigniorage lce as penalty in addition to normal seignioragc lce lcviable under the rules. [Explanation. - It shall be conrpctent to thc officer nominated by- the Director of Mincs nnd (ieology to determinc thc question whether quarrl ilrg operation or transportation oI minerals are carried or not within thc mcaning of this rule' The applicant/applicant company convicted lor an ofI'ence re lating to unauthorized minine/qr.ranf irrg of minor mincrals shall bc debarrcd/disqualiticd lor getting ncw Quarr) Lease or renewal of the cxisting Quarry Lcase for a period of ten ( 10) ycars.l (5) whocver contravenes the provisions undcr sub-rulc (5) ot Rulc 10, the Assistant Director of Mincs and Geolog;- or any Officer nominated in this behalf by thc Director ol Mines and (ieology shall raise a dcmand as spccificd in thc Schcdule III with five times penaltl. In the event ol'delault of payment of pcnalty within a period of one month an officer not belou' thc rank ol'Assistant Director of Mincs and Geologl or any offtcer authorized b1' tlre Director of Mines and Gcology shall be competcnt to seize the unit trom its operalion by duly recording pancl.ranama- On such scizure it is the rcsponsibility ol'the industry concerned to safeguard its machinerl'b1- kecping a rlatch atld sard aud departnlent rvill i r0 (l- i \\ Ir \,) lr?llt oll0l.l & hrr.h not takc any responsibilit), lbr the machinery an(l .,ny ()thcr cquipment present in industry or damage to rhe civil structures.

9. I'he constitutionality and vires of such provisions and dclegations were upheld in L. Venkateswara Rao (supra)', r'r,here the Full Bench held that Rule 26(3)(ii) of TSMMC Rulc.;. 196(r. is not ultra vires the MMDR Act. l-he delegation of adjudicatory and recovery p()\\ers to the ADM&G is ncither arbitrary nor illegal. [t r'r us firrther held that statutory enrpowerment under Rules tiamed p,rrsuant to Section l5( I) of the MMDR Act, includes the authority to rL'c()\,cr penatties lor uular'iful ertraction of minor rninerals 9-i. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is ()\tracted below

66. For the aforesaid reasons. \\'e hold that Rulc 2(r (-i) (ii) of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession RLrlcs. I96(r. is not ultra vires the powers olthe Statc Govemnreut .rlrd is not arbitlary or unreasonable. Wc record the subnrissiorr rnadc b1 thc learncd Govemment I'lcader on behall' ol the Statc (iovermront that the rulc is intended to be uscd onlv againsr bulk uscrs or consumers and that it is not intendcd ro bc uscd against pctty or small consumers. The contractors rrr.: lrorrnd b) the terms of thc agrecmcnts cntered into by thcnr .r ith the respondent company and in casc thcy do not 1.;roducc docurnentary proof in token ol pal"ment of seigntoriruc l'cc in respect ol'the mincrals used bl them in the cxecutir n of civil works entrusted to them by thc respondent coul'tany. thc rcspondcnt company is entitlcd to recovcr thc seignrtrlagc ti'c in respct t ol the rninor mincrals consumcd by it. trorn thc bills palable to the contractors and pay it to .he Stltc (iovernnlcnt. In vieu, of the ftrrcgoing discus;ion- thc dccision ol- the Division Bcnch datcd Februarl' l6 t988 in Writ l']ctition No. 5939 o1' l9tl7 and batch is over-rLrlcd. KI,,J \\ P No.ll7J8 or'2011 & batch

10. 'fhe petitioners placed reliance on the principle laid down by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M/s GSR Stone Crusher vs' State of Andhra Pradeshr, wherein it was held that penal consequences under Rule 26 of the A.P.MMC Rules must be enforccd through prosecution in a criminal court of competent jurisdiction' During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this court that the State has already preferred intra Court appeals challenging the said common judgment. The same are pending. There are no interim orders'

11. However, in M,/s Murali Krishna Minerals vs The State of Tclanganaa, this Court, aftcr recalling an earlicr contrary view held that the ADM&G, acting under statutory rules liarned under Section l5 ol the MMDR Act, is empowered to levy penalties, and that the contention that such power rests exclusively w'ith the courts is untenable in vierv of the statutory framework. I l-i. Relevant paragraph ofthe said judgment is extracted belorv: - "t5.Sincc the petitioner have placcd rcliance on the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to support their contention and the said decision having been considered by a Coordinate Bench o1 this Court in its order dt 25-02.2025 in W.P.No.25814 of 2023. this Clourl is of the view that the decision of the tligh ('ourt ol Andhra Pradcsh cannot advancc the case ol the petitioner. morc so. uhen it is not shown to this Clourt as to the ordcr ol' this Court not considcnng tlte pr,,r isions in conect ficrspccti\ c." '\U.P. No. 8390 o1' 201 8 and batch- dated 10 09'2012 ',w P. ]\]ts 980f 2015 t2 t.t I '.1 lr \o Il7l8 oll0ll & hllch

12. In M/s Kisan Stone Crusher vs. the Statc of Telangana' whcre, relving on the scheme of Section 2l(5) of the MMDR Act, this ('ourt held that the State has the power to recovcr value, rcnt, rovalty, or pcnaltl, ln ca ses of unlawful mining, and that such recovery can be enfirrced thror-rgh designated authorities under the Rulc.s. -l he contention that enfbrcenrcnt must only be through a crimini,l prosecution was catcgorically rc..iectcd. l2-i. Relcvant paragraph in the said.iudgment i:; cxtracted belou,: -

21. Ifronr the afbresaid cnunciation. it is clcar thal lh(r State is I.titr inu lxrwcr to Iev.v penaltv r-rnder Rulc l6 of the I,-.larrgrrna Statl \4rnor Mineral Clonccssion Rulcs. 1966 anci rrhcn thc porrcr is sourced through a statutc itsell, the cot t.ntion 01' petitroncr tl.rat penalty shalI be levied only under licction 2l ol'thc \,lMDI{ Act. 1957 does not star.rd the judiciul ;cr.uliur. as sLrch. thc levy of penalty bv respondcnts is in uct.orclance uith lurr. Consequentlr'. challengc to l{cvision o dcr dared .l0.0ll.l()12 and consequential notice datcd 05.09.1()ll issucd b1 thc .1'r'rcspondent by petitioner tails lor the rcason:i stirted suprl. Resrrltantly. Writ ['etition is liable to be disnrissctl as hcrcli ol'merits and accordingll. the samc is disn i:scd. \o COSI:,

13. Hon,cver. during the course of hearing ir is brought to thc notice of this court the writ petitioner in the said r:ase has alreadl prc'l'erred an Intla court appeal WA No. 858 of 2025 and it is pending. -l'here is no Intelirn order -i \\ Il.\e, l-iSl.l rrl l0l-l UI W P :lo llll3 ot2021& balch

14. ln the light ol the aforesaid discussion, I respcctively agree with the view taken by this Court in Kishan Stone Crusher and Murali Krishna Minerals (supra). Therelore, I am ol the considered opinion that the ADM&G has pou'er to initiate proceedings under Rule 26 of TSMMC Rules, 1966, impose penalties. Therefore, the contention of the leamed counsel for the petitioners in the batch of writ petitions that the ADM&G has no power/j urisdiction to issue impugned demand notices is untenable. Accordingly the Point No. I is answered.

15. With regard to the second point i.e. the Assistant Dircctor, Mines and Geology, has issued impugned demand notices in violation of principles of natural justice, without serving notices on the petitioners, copies of Inspection/ETS/Techr ical Staff Report, the said survey was conducted behind the back of thc petitioners and that thc Assistant [)irector has not considered the reply submitted by some of the pctitioners properly, it is relevant to note that the Supreme Court in State of Meghalaya vs. All Dimasa Students Union6, held that imposition of llnancial liability must be preceded by an objective determination and observance ol fair hearing. 15-i. Relevant paragraphs in the said judgment arc extracted belou': - "(10t9) 8 scc 177 l4 t,.l ,, , \\ tr.ts ,il lllll & bJrrh 9(r.-l'hc l9i7 Act has becn enacted in relbrencc to lichcilule Vlt l.is( I trntrl -5:1 to the lbllowitrg effcct: '5J. R<'gultttion oJ mines und mineral dcve lopn'cnt ltt tlrc trtt'nt t) tthith .sticlt regulc irtrt and dewlopmattt tndL'r the L.ontrol of.tha L;nktn is declured by Parliamcrtl bt lav' ttt he ttpctlient in tht public intarcsl "

97. At this .iurlcturc. we may notice Schedulc ''ll L.ist II l:nrrr l l. ri liich is to thc lbllowing effect: ''23 Ragulution of mines and mineral devclopmen'subjtct to tl,a yr, ,iti.sir,ns o/ List I v'ith respe''l lo regu'dtIo utul dt't t'lrtpntcttl ttniL'r llrc conlrol o.f Ihe Union. '

98. fhc legislative power undcr Entry 23 is sr'rlject to thc pror ision ol' List I with respcct to regulation and rtcrcloptncut utrder the control of the lJnion' \\'hcrl the ['nion has dcclared to have taken under its !olltr()l lhe re gtrlation ol' ntincs and developmcnt of minel a s to. the extrnt l)roliLlcd in thc Act' the legislativc power of the State to thc abovc c\tcnt is dcnuded. The learned courrs'-'l lbr the appcllant ltas alsit very fairly not disputed thc posi ion in lau' l6 In Narcsh Chandra Agarwala v' lnstitute of Chartered AccountantsT. the Apex Couft upheld Rule 9 (3) tb)o1- the Chanered Accountarrts I{ules, 1007, re.iecting the argument t lat it exceeded the parentACI.SScope..I.heCourtappliedthe''generali-y.Vs.enumeration'. principlc. holding that while Scction 2lA (4) cl' the Chartcrcd Accountants Act, only mentioned "further investiS.ation," the broader rule-nraking poser underSection 29A (I)of the said Act' allowed thc Boardol.Disciplinetclret-erCasesdirectlytotheDisciplina|.yCommittee. 'fhe ruling errlphasizecl that delegated legislation rn'rst align rvith the - l0l lSt'C\)rrl inc S( l l l 5 KL.,1 \\ P No I]7,18 oll0ll & batch Act'sputpose,butneednotbestrictlyconfinedtoitsenutllerated exarnplcs. Thus, the rule was deemed valid as it lurthered the Act's objective of ensuring professional accountability' t6-i. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgrnent are extracted

31. In Afzat Llllah v. T'he State o-f Ltttar Pradesh reported in 1963 SaC Ont-ine SC 76, it was argued that tho impugned bye-laws were invalid, bccause they were outside the authority conferred on the delegate to make by'e-laws by Section 298(2) ofthe Act. and it was also contended that the bve-laus ucrc invalid fbr the additional reason that thel wlere inconsistent with Section 241 of the Act' lieiccting the said contentions. this Court observed as fbllows: " Eten il thc said clauses ditl not justi/,'- the itnpugned byalav,there can be little doubt that the said bye'lats tioutd bc .iusti/ied by the general pov'er conferred on the Boards by s. 298(1). Ir is u'ell settlcd that the specifit provisions such as ore contained in lhe severaL ilouiet uf s. 298(2) are merely illustrative and they- cannor ie rertd as reslrictive of the generality of pou,ers prescribed by s. 298(l) vide Emperor u' .Sibnath Banerji I'LANLl/P Rllt)21/ 1915. If the powers speciJied by s. 298(t) are very tlide and they take in i,ithin their scope byeJaws like lhe ones with which u'e rtre concerned in the pra,sent appeal it cannol be said that lhe powers enumeraled ttnder 's 298(21 conlrol the general tr,ords used by s. 298(1). These laller clauses mereb, illuslrate and do nol exl'ousl all the powers conferred on lhe Board, so thot an)' cases not Jalling within the powers specified by sectiott 298(2) may well be protected by s. 298(l), provided, of course, the impugned bye-laws can be iustifietl by reJerence lo rhi iquirements of s-298(l)- There can be rut doubt that tie impugned bye-lov's in ragard to lhc markets ti-um.'tl hv ,einoncl"nt Nrt. 2 ure Jor thcJirtherantt ttJ munitipit (rdministralion unler lhe A<'t' and so woul'l arrraci rhe prot'isions oJ s. 298(l) l'herefore, we are .satis/ied thit lhe High Courl +t'tts right conclusion thal rhe impugned by lov's ara talid l6 Kl_,1 \\ P Nr ll7:lll ol lr)ll & brt!h

35. [:rortt rct'crcnce to the Precedents discusscd tL'ovc and taking tlrc lirllorving legal prtnciples that may be c cvant in adjudicating cascs *'hcrc subordinate legi,latior.r is challcnlrcd ()n thc ground ol'bcing 'Ultra vire.s' the parent Act: (r) I'he doctrine ol ultra vires envisages tlrai a Rule makrnu hotly must tunction ',r'ithin the purview ol'lhe Rulc makinq authoriti . conlerred on it by the parent rr c .. As thc bodl nr.rking Rules or Rcgulations has no inheren: por"et ol' its o$n l() makc rules. but dcrives such powcr ottl' tiotn the statute. i1 nrust necessaril)' lunction within the pur\ i(w ofthc statute. I)elegated legislation should not travel bevond the pun ieu ot thc parent Act. (b) Ultra vires Ina\ arise in sercral rrars: there nrai bc simple exc€ss cll .p-)\ver over uhat is conlcrred bl the parcnt Act: delegatctl legislation nar he irrconsistctrt uith thc provisions o[ thc ;ltrent Act: thcrc rlla\ be nolt-cont pliatrce with the lrocedural requircnrcnl as laitl dor,,rt in lhc parent Act. It is tl e lunction ol thc c,)urts to kcep all authoritics within thc cotllines of the lau hr supplling thc doctritte of ultra vires. (c) lla rulc is challcngcd as bcins ultra r ircs. on the ground that il excccds the poler conlcrt'cd h] thc parcnt Act, the (,)trt nlust. fr.rr/r'. rlcternrinc rnd considcr the source of powcr u hich is relatahlc to the rulc. Sccondl-v. it must determinc tlle meauing of thc srrhordinate legislation itselfand finally, it trrust decide u'hcther thc subordinate legislation is consistcttt ''vith and uithin thc scope ol the porvcr delegated. (d) f)clc,:ated rulc- makinu porrcl in statutcs gcncrally follows a strrndardized pattenr. .\ broad scc[iott glauts authorit)' rvith phra;cs like 'ln carr) o l tllc prorisiott.\' ot lo carry out thr Ntpo.\e.\. Anothcr sub-section specilrcs areas lor dclegation, crlicn usinq lanquasc llke -\'ilhotl thc lorcgoing porrrr.' In detcrtnining if thc imptrglcd rule is intra rilcs'Lrltra rires the scope ol delegated po\\el. Cottrts hare applied tlre 'gorcrrrlllr' \'ar\ s enttlnerolior?' n'illciple (c) t hc "gt'rrt'rrrlr/t t,er.tin tnunrerulion" principle lal s down that. u lrcrc a statutc conl'crs particular por'vcrs wilhotrl prcitdiLt to thc generali[r of a general polr:t alreadv conlerrcd. the particular po!!crs are only illustrari\e ol 1he general po\\cr. and do not in lnl uay reslricts Ilt gencral porrer. in that sensc. ercn il'thc irnpugned rulc ili ci no1 lall rtilhin the cnumerated heads. that by itself will tx)l determinc if thc rulc is ultra vircs/inlra vires. It must lt lurthcr exanrincd il'lhc impuqned rulc can be uphcld by Prciudice.lo the gentrtlity ol t7 KL..I U P No 127.18 01202.{ d- batch

17. tn M/s. A.P. Electrical Equipment v. Tahsiltlar8, the Apex Court cmphasizcd that penal consequences, especially tjnancial tiabilities, must be adjudicated with procedural f'aimess, and Court exprcssed strong disapproval ol the State's reliance on "bogus paper panchanamas" to clairn possession, suggesting an attempt to manipulate the legal process l7-i. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted be lorv:- -15. [t rias pointed out on bchalf of the appellant herein that not onlv thc lactory is still running on the subject-land but therc are multi-storeyed residential buildings also constructcd thcrcin. [t rvas also pointed out that cntire land is encumpasscd by a boundary wa[[ and the gatc is manned by security guard. [t was also brought 1o our notice that the so callrd plnchrtama does not contain any sitc map or distinctivc boundaries with special divisions whatsoever. The entire extcnt ol I.61679 sq.mtrs. is bound by onc compound uall. [t sccms that the Division Bench in its impugned judgrnent has observed that there is no requirement under the statute tbr ohtaining the signature of the Iandowuer in the panchnama or filing of the affidavits by the panchas. Whcn State Authorities try to take law in their own hands by hook or crook and rcl1, on bogus paper panchnamas for the purpose ol asserting that actual physical possession u'as takcn over hclbrc the date of the repeal, then it is impcrative that the signature of the landowner must be obtained in thc panchnanra so as to attach sanctity and authenticity to such crercise of'takinc. over of actual possession. Affidar,its of the panchas uould atso attach great sanctity to the same. .16. Wc har e no hesitation in saying that thc State has not placcd truc and correct facts in all respect. Both ol us (J.B. l'ardiu'ala arrd IL. Mahadevan, J.J.) have workcd as judges in our respcctirc I tigh Courls. We had the occasitltl to decidc 8:ol5 tNsc: :z+ KL.1 '\ P i\o 127{8 ol l0l4 & barch mau) nlatlcrs e\actl) of thc present t)pe. Our e\l)erience so [ar has htcrr tlrJt out rrl len mallcrs in ninc n]illtcrs it uas apparent tl'rat the cascs \\erc onc ol paper poss(s:iion. Thc prcsent casc is also orre ol paper possession. lll: learned Singlc .lLrdge rras constrainccl to obsen'e that hirr irrg regard to tlte nratcr ials on rccortl l.:rr docuntents wcrc l rrrnd to be antc dated coupled \\ ith lirErrication ol evidenc-' to some e\ter1t.

18. In Shrec Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v Commissioner of Central Excise'), the Apex Court held that Rules or Regulations that exceed the authority qranted bl the parent statrle afe inherentll unenfbrceable. Courls ha'.e to holcl sLrch rr.rles void ri,ren their validitv is challenged, even il'no lormaI declaration of invaliditr i:; sought

19. The Supre'me Clourt in Kerala State Eh:ctricity Board v Thomas Josephr{), underscores thc principte that dc|:gated tegislation must align u'ith thc parent statutc's scope and intcrrt Further A rule- making body rntLst lirnction * ithirr the authority gran,:ed by the parent Act. It cannot excced i1s dclegatcd l)()wers

20. Horver cr. the argumenr that thc ADM&(i lacks jurisdiction per se to initiate such procecdirrgs is untenable. -fhe recent decision in Sri P. Pramod Kumar vs The State of Telangana I also alfimrs that Assistant Directols are statutorily elnpo\\.ered to issrre demand notices under Rule 26(2). and Court ruled thar no statutory p()v,/er under the Act o 1zotoyi SCC 6-tl 'n 2oll scc 700 rr\\I I). No -10-1.10 ol l0ll l9 KL.J u.P \o.127.18 oi2021 & harch or Rules allorvs the authority to review its own finalized orders and issuc a contradictory dcmand notice. Thus, the fresh demand u'as without j urisdiction. 20-i. Relevant paragraph ol thc said judgment is extracted below:- tl-,...Basing on thc satellite survey and findings, a fresh demand notice was issued to petitioner based on sophisticatcd survcl'. 1-his demand notice is virtually amounting to revicw ol- prcvious conclusions of facts arrived at b) thc third rcspondcnt. Oncc the findings arrived at in the prcr ious sunel s and panchnama with rcgard to the persons lesponsihlc f-or thc illegal cxcavation which culminated to issuance ofdemand notice have attained finality, allowcd re- sur,,el and issued liesh detcrmination proceedings amounts to revie',r of prer ious procccdings, which is impermissible. Neither the nct or the Rules dealing with minor mincral empo\ers thc authoritl to revicw his own order and come to a diflercnt conclusion. ['he dcrland notice in the prcsent case is result ol lack of .iurisdiction. This ground is sufficicnt to set asidc thc impugned dcmand noticc.

13. As seen fiom thc abovc judgments, bar of writ petition rvhen there is an eflicacious altemative remedy exists, is a sclf'-imposed bar and rthcn therc are no disputed questions of lact arrd r,,hen rrrit pctition rt'as taken up and pleadings rvere crchanged. it cannot be dismisscd solely on the ground ol- c\istence ol alternative and cfficacious remedy. In the present case. entirc case is proceedcd on the undisputed fact cristed fiom the concspondcnccs and material made out lrom the joint inspection of the authorities themselves- They clcarll dcmonstratc that initial conclusions arrived at by the authoritics \\cre that illcgal cxcavations wcre done by A.Jayram Reddy and other leasc-holders and in fact. demand notice rras also issued to A.Jayram Reddy, and ignoring the said dcmand noticc. thcl sought to re-assess the liability in tlre fbrm of ercrcise ol'review powcr in the guise of Regional Vigilance Oflicers' directions fbr re-survey, which is nothing but revie*ing the orders made by the 3rd respondent fixing illegal excaration on A.Ja1'ram Reddy and recalling the dernand notice issucd on hirn. Such subsequent satellite sur\ c\ and tixing liabilitl on petitioner is rvithout .iurisdiction. There is no disputcd questions of fact inrolved l KLJ \\ P \,) ll?.18 ol l0lj & haluh to resolve thc issue in thc rrrit petition. Thereforc. existcnce of altematiYc remedr clocs not crL'atc a bar to nr rintain the rvrit perition. In thc said hackground, thc contcn:ion raised with regard to non-nrairrlainabilitl of ,'rrit petitiot) s rcjccted.

21. In Larsen & Toubro l-ttl. v. Executive Errgineeri -', erstwhile High Court ol Andhra Pradesh, cluashcd the demanrl notices where no valid lease existed and the material \vas not cluanied ibr commercial use, reiterating that seigniorage t'ee or penalties rnust be backed by lawfll lease/quarry operations and propcr acllrrclication.

22. ln Karnataka Rare Earth r,. Senior Geologist, Department of Mines & Geologyr'r, thc Apex ('ourt rendered th: said judgment in the context ol recoverry ol ducs through civil procc,:dings under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. 'l'lrc Suprcme CoLrrt. held that mere issuance of a demand notice docs nor crystallize a tiability unless there is adj ud ication or consent.

23. However, in thc present casc, thc dernand not.ces are not in the naturc of civil recovcrv procecdings, but are issLr:d in exercise of statutory powers under Rr.rle 26(2) ol' the l'SMMC [i.ules, 1966, which cxpressly empowers the ADM&G to determirre unautn()rized cxcavation and irxpose penalties. -the adjudicatory scheme Lrrrder the TSMMC Rules, being a product ol deleqated legislation tl'arnctL .rnder Section t 5 '' l0l: scc onl.inc Ap I 1t I ' ' (roo4) 2 scc 7{r l KL.J WP No.12718 o1202'l & balch of the MMDR Act, 1957, car-ries distinct statutory force and cannot be equated with the civil recovery mechanisms discussed in Karnataka Rare Earth (supra). Hence. the ratio of that judgment has no application to the facts of the present case in view of statutory framework'

24.lnK.SeshagiriRao&Co'vs'StateofA'P'14'High Court of Andhra Pradesh, held that ADM&G's power to issue demand notices must be supported by proper enquiry and opportunity' A mere assumption of itlegal quar-r-ving' r"'ithout conlronting the person with evidence. is insufficient' 24-i. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted below:- R As ner the said Circular Memo No'40454iR3- I /2011' ijr"i 5i.oa.Ioii, i,,ru...t bv the Director of Mines and 6."1.*r. iU."f,rtmpatnam' N-I'R District' all the Assistant ol Mines & Geologv(Regular and Vigilance) and ;il;l; n",.,'rv l)irect.rrs of Mi[es & Gcotogy in the State were irii*;.a iirr *t,it" bo.king thc cases on Mining/Quan1 without a lease or pcmrit' care should be taken by adopting ".a;i" *rtJJi*t s'uch as intimation to the complainant to be in" ti." o[ enquirv and.also "' '"!1ti:]:1i: ll' G;; iease holders who are purported to hc having involved [n tne ilt.gai u"tl" ity to be prcscnt at thc time of enquiry 9. But, in thc casc on hand. it is an admitted fact that no such p;;;;r;. ;;t contemplared b1' the respondents^tefore issuance of the show causc notice dated 02 08'2024 and the said shtt*' cause notice was based on a ;;;;;;;, 'rrua. t'v one Sri Somireddi Chandra Mohan ;;;iil Reddy. " 2.9391D021 l )2 KL.J 'l f' \o 11718 ofl0ll & barch Iix.Minister of Andhra Pradesh and l'rcsent l{on'tlc MI.r\ ol Survepalli Assembly Constituency' and as rvell rs the Joint Inspection report rvhich was conductcd on l9-0.t..102.1 and 20.04.2024. without any noticc to thc pctiti()ner. I{c,rvever. it can also bc observed that in spitc of the requests nradc b.r thc petitioner on 29.08.2024.09.09.202.1 and I l.l I.2(11. ncithcr the copy ol the Joint lnspection Report was scrred on the pctitioner so as to submit an erplanatiou tr, the said impugned show cause notice nor hare conducterl rrnv lresh inspection as per the guidelines prescribed in CircLrlar N4emo No.,10454/R3-l20ll, Dated 28.02.2012, issue:l by the Director of Mines and Geology, lbrahimpatnan, \'l R District. as requested br the pctitioncr.

10. [n view ol the aforesaid facts and circumstarrccs- this Court fccls it appropriate to allo,'r'thc urit petitror hr setting aside the impugned show cause noticc No.2.11.,/M/2001 tiatcd 02.08.2024, issued by the rcspondent No.4 rrcl Iurthcr matter is remanded back to the rcspondent No. I lbr liesh consideration after duly giving a noticc and as ncll zrs to conduct a Joint inspection in the presence of the p.rtitioncr b1 duly. following the guidelines as prcscribod urdcr the Circular Memo No.40454/Ri-L/201 t. Dated l8.f)l-2011. issued by thc Direclol ol Mincs and iieolos\. Ibrahimpatnam, NTR District. Thercaftcr. rhe "espondenr No.4 is at liberty to initiatc further course of action.

25. In Government of Antlhra Pradcsh 'r's Media Corp Technologies India Limited'', Division Bcnch of ersrrvhile I{igh Court of Andhra Pradesh, held that the purchaser company :;hould be permitted to produce necessary documentary prool as envisirged under Rule 26(3xii) of the TSMMC Rules. 1966 and direc.cd the concerned authorities to decide matter afresh considering the dcc Lrments produced, giving them a fair opportunity of hearing. " (n6) 2 l't-D 792 KL.J W P No 12748 ot2024 & barch

26. The sum and substance of the aloresaid judgments is that the ADM&G shall fotlow the procedure laid down under Rule 26 of TSMMC Rules, shall offer' lair opportunity of submitting explanation including ser-v'ing of show cause notice, lumishing of information, if any, sought by the pa(ies, then consider the explanation submitted by the parties including their contentions and the documents in support of their contentions. Thereafter, determine the tiability ol-the parties.

27. As per Rule 26 of Rules. 1966 and the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments; a ADM&G, shall come to a conclusion with regard to illegal excavation and transpoftation of minor mineral (in the present case'gravel') either by conducting Field/ETS/Technical Staff Survey of the premises, then make a report of the same, and issue shorv cause notice mentioning the details of the said illegal excavation and transpoftation of minor mineral b. On receipt of the satne, the Companies/Firms/Proprietary concems/Persons shall subrnit explanation within the time frame mentioned in the show cause notice 24 Lt I '\ l' \n ll7.l8 tll l()ll & baLch Il they need any of the information/proceed ings mentioned in the show cause notices, they have to str:cilically trake a requcst to the Assistant Director, to furnish l :opv olthc same. d. On receipt of the said request, the Assistant Director sha[[ furnish copy of the same to the parties with a specitic direction to subrnit explanation within a specified tinr,:liarne e. On receipt of the said infbrmation, partres shall sr.rbn-rit cxplanation within the aforesaid time grante,l bv the ADM&G f. In tl're event of payment of mineral re\'(rnllc duc to the Govemmenl, the pafty shall specifically srrLt,: rhe sarrc irr the explanation and submit proof of paymenr o1- the same along with the explanation g. Parlies lrave to submit explanation adclrcss;in-e each of the allegation made against them in the show cnusc notices h. On receipt of the said explanations, ADM&(i shall considcr the same in proper perspective including any erLclosur.cs z'relevant documents that are submitted with thc sarrc:Lnd issr.re deurand notices by specifically giving reasons lor the contcntions raised by the parties 25 Kt-.J \V.P No 1271E of202,l & barch The Assistant Director shall also consider rhe replies given by parties while imposing maximum penalty of ten times in terms of proviso to Rule 26(2) of the Rules, 1966 and he has also to assign specific reasons whilc irnposing maximum penalty of ten times, giving reasoning is an indispensable part of principal of natural justice and he should fbllow the same

28. The Supreme Court in Isolators & Isolators v' M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd.r5, has categorically held that imposition ol the rnaximum penalty without specifuing the f-actors justifoing such harsh consequencc is unsustainable in law. The principle flowing therc iiom is that while the power to penalize is vested in the authority, the proportionality of the penalty must be assessed with reference to the nature of violation, quantum of loss caused, and the conduct ol the notice. Absent such rccbrded reasons, the levy of maximum penalty r.vould offend the principles of natural justice and stand vitiated 28-a. Relevant paragraph is extracted below:-

39. Though, ordinarily. for such arr omission o[ the Iligh Court, the course would have been to remit the issue tbr consideration but, we are of the vierv that no useful purpose rvould be served by remitting such an issuc in this matter. This is fbr the simplc reason that imposition ol pcnalty against the appellant cannot bc approvcd bccause of the want of specific shorv-cause notice. Moreover. no r'2010 scc onlinc sc 7-i-1 26 kl I \\ l' No []ilS ol lrll.l & batoh specilic quantum ol loss has been specified by the r:spondcnts so as to justity thc imposition of rnaximum of pcnalty. \'ii:r'vcd lronr anr angle. the impugned order dated 17 -8-2020 is re,1- ircd to be sct aside.

29. In the Jight of the aforesaid discussion, conring 1o the thcts ol thc present cascs on hand, there are 14 writ petitions: - 1-a. ln W.P. 12748 of 2024,4th respondent - ADN4&G. had issued shor.r, cause notice dated 06.022024 based on a 'l echnical StafT Inspection repoft dated 24.01.2024. Petitione r has submitted dctailed reply or.r 23.02.2024 contending that narne ,rl'the Managing Director ol the company is wrongly mentioned in the show' cattsc notice, 'f hereafter. 4't' respondent has issued reviit'd slron' cause notice dated 05.03.2024. On receipt of the said rer, ised show causc notice, pctitioner has submitted explanation drtcd 12.03.1024 contending that they have not conducted any illeg:rl excaration in Sy. No. 26611 and claim the gravel used. was only orcrburden liorn their valid quarry leases and sister conceffls, it rvas also flrther contcnded that tl'rerc is no revenue loss to the Min:s Deparlment since thc Roads and Buildings Deparlment alre ady deducted sci-eniorage t-ee frorn their work bills, without cou:;idering the said reply ,and also submitted the copies of documents i s proof rvith the sarne the .1'l' respondent has issued dernaud uotice c a-ed 16.04,1014 directing the petitioner to pay an amount ol Rs.2,8fI.00,936/- rvhich ) 71 KI J \\ l' No ll718 ol 2o2r & balch includes ten tirnes pcnatty of Rs-2,3 7,24'000r- stating that he has considered the repty submitted by the petitioner. Challcnging the said demand notice petitioner filed the present writ pt'tition' l-b. Perusal of the impugned demand notice rvould reveal that 4th respondent has not considered the afbresaid cotltentions raiscd and enclosure attached by the petitioner, and there is no.iustification given l'or imposing maximum penalty ol' l0 tirrles' t-c. Therefbre, the impugned demand notice is in violation of the principle laid down in the aforesaid i udgments. procedure laid down under Rule 26 of the TSMMC Rules. 2-a. W.P. 34020 of 2024,4't'respondent ADM&(I had issucd shorv cause notice dated 09-10.2024 based on l'echnical Stalf Report/Inspection Report/ETS report dated 09' l0'2024' Petitioner has submitted a detailed reply dated 04.1 l.l0l4 conteudirrg that excavation was only incidental to building construction' not lbr commercial mining, and the excavated rock rvas crushed/used onsite fbr backfilling and construction, they had all statutory clearances and had paid Environmental lmpact Fee under G'O Ms' No.34/2015 & G.O.Ms.No. 8l2\l6, rvhich substitutes seigniorage for such construction excavations and since Envilontnent Itrrpact 28 l,l .J '\ P \( lllls,,l lril.l tr h.nlh Iree alreadv covers the material used onsite, no sel,arate seigniorage or penalty is payable,lurther petitioners also subnritted the copies ol- docurncnts as proo(' with the same Thereafter, J l' respondc.nt has issued demand noticc, dated 25.1I.2024 directing tl.re petitioner to pay an arnount ol- Rs.86,63,65,720l- including ten tirnes penaltl.ol' 78,76,05,2001-, staring thar he has considergd the said r.eply dared 04 I 1.201{. flre samc is impugned in the present u r t petition. 2-b. Pcrusal o1'the said impugned demand nor rce u.ould rcr eal that rherc is no consideration of the contentions raiscd and crlclosures att:tched b1, the pctitioner in the reply rhted 0,1.1 I.1024 and there is no.iustilication in irnposing maxin.run- penalry ol- i0 times. 2-c. Thclelbrc, the impugned demand notice is in violation of thc principlc laid down in rhe aloresaid judgmenr;. procedurc Iaid down under [{ule 26 of the TSMMC Rules. 3-a. W.l'.16550 of 2024,4'r' respondent ADN,[6:G. had issued shorv causc notice. dated )9.02jI24 based on a -t'ectrnical Stafl Rcport/ Inspcction rcpoft, dated 28.02.2024, E'l S survel, rcporl dated 20. 10.1013. Petitioner has subrnitted a reply tiated 1g.0.i.2024 corttending that allcgcd excayatc.d material w.as -,1tirely usctl iu )9 Lt .l \{ I'j ]\o l2llt ol l02l & barch Govcmrnent civil works, and seigniorage fbe was already deducted at source by Roads and Buildings Deparlment and Panchayat Ra.i Depaflments under G.O.Ms. No. 23i 1999 and there was no intentional encroachment beyond lease, the ETS survey was conducted without notice, behind their back, and is unscicntific/incorrect. Hence, the demand is procedurally unfair and dupticative, as payment has already been made through deductions, turther petitioners also submitted the copies of docurnetlts as proot- with the same J'hereafter, 4th respondent has issued denlarld notice' dated 25.05.2024 directing petitioner to pav Rs.4 1,40,80. 102/- towards norrnal scigniorage fee along with penalty i.e. norrnal seigniorage fee of Rs. 4,09,72,8401- and penalty Rs.32,63'98'225/- ten tirnes the normal seigniorage fee and other statutory amounts of- Rs.4,67,09,037/-. The same is impugned in the present writ petition. 3-b. Perusat of the said impugned demand notice tvould reveal that there is no consideration of the contentions raised and enclosures attached by the petitioner in the reply dated 18'03 '2024 and there is no justification in imposing maximutn penalty of l0 tlmes. t0 KI- J \ l' \o :'l1t L,l l0ll & brlch 3-c. Thercfbre, the impugned demand notice is in violation ol the principle laid dow'n in the aforesaid judgments. :rocedure laid dorvn under Rule 26 ol-the TSMMC Rules. 4-a. W.l'. 25651 ot'2024,,4'h respondent ADM&G, had issued show cause notice dated l4 08.2023 based on .joint strrvey and inspection conducted on 27.07.2023 to which the pctitioner sent a detailed replv on 0l.l l.l0l..l, contcnding that t'rat the alleged excess excaviltion is only duc to survey discrepanr. ir:s between the earlier chain survey arrd the later DGPS sun e), 'r'hich has since been correctcd br thc authorities. All the nraterial was used in Govemmenl works and the seigniorage fee and DI\4I were already recovered ar source. and hence rro penalty is liable, further petitioners also subnrittt-,d thc copies oldocurnents rrs proof with the same .There'alicr.,1'r' respondent has issued demarrtl notice, dated

2.8.12.2023 clilecting petitioner to pay Rs.3,t10,8 1.6 15/- ten times the normal scignioragc fce. -l'he same is iLnpugnt-d in the present rvrit petitiorr. 4-b. Perusal of the said irnpugned demand not cc rvould reveal that there is no consideration of the contentiorts raised and -ll K1,.J W P \o 127{8 L,lloll & b .l' cnclosures attached by thc petitioner in the reply dated 03.1t.2011 and there is no justihcation in imposing maximum penalty l0 tirnes ,l-c. .l'herefore, the impugned demand notice is in violation ol- the principle laid down in the aloresaid judgments, proccdure laid down under Rulc 26 of the'I'SMMC Rules. 5-a W.P. 33461 of 2024,4'r' respondent ADM&G, has issued show cause notice 28.02.2024 based on inspection report datcd

24.02.2024 to which the petitioncr sent a dctailed reply on

05.03.2014. contending that no iltegat mining was caried out and the gravcl in question was only surface soil cut and reused u'ithin the [a1.'out lor road tbrmation and leveling, withotrt any transporlation or commercial extraction' They rely on G'O'Ms' No' 139 dated 12.1 1.2013, which exempts seigniorage for land leveling fbr civil purposes, and contend that the inspection was done r'vithout their prcsence, rendering the assessment arbitrary and unsustainable, further petitioners also submitted the copies of documcnts as proof with the same .Thereafter, 4'h respondent has issued dernand notice, dated 05-11.2024 directing petitioner to pa) Rs. 4,06,43,74t1l- ten times the normal seigniorage fees, J'he same is impugned in the present writ petition' t2 KI,.I \ ' \o i.1r'18 ol l0l'1 & batch 5-b. Perusa[ of the said irnpugned demand notir:e would reveal that there is no consideration of the contentions raised and enclosure attached by the petitioner in the reply drrt:d 05 '03 '2024 and there is no .iustification in imposing maximunr penalty of 10 5-c. Theretbre, the impugned demand notice.i: 'n violation of the principlc laid down in the afbresaid .iudgments, procedure laid down under Rule 26 of t[.re TSNIMC] Rules. 6-a. W.P. 15607 of 2024. th respondent ADNI&G has issued show cause notice dated 20.02.2024 based on techni':al stalf reporl dated 17.02.2024 to which the petitioner sent a detailed reply on

04.03.2024 Contending that no penalty is leviable since they i.rave already paid llnvironrnental lnipact Fee of {1.6],'/0,768/- under G.O.Ms. No. 34/2015 and G.O.lVIs. No. 8/2016. v'lich covers the entire built-up area including parking and pathwavs. They rely on Covemment clarifications and the Director ol' Mines & Geology's circulars to assert that once such f'ee is paid, no sellllr,lte seigniorage or penalty can be irnposed, rendering the irn;lugned notice unsustainable, further petitioners also submittecJ the copies of documcnts as prool rvith the setne .Thereaftcr, -1' respondcnt has l I ,1-) kt...l W.P No.12748 o12024 & balch issued dcmand notice, dated 20.05.2024 directing petitioner to pay Rs. 17,49,36,905/- ten times the nonnal seigniorage fees, the same is impugned in the present writ petition. 6-b. Perusal ol the said impugned demand notice would reveal that therc is no consideration of the contentions raised and enclosure attached by the petitioner in the reply dated 04.03.2024 and there is no justification in imposing maximum penalty of l0 6-c. Therefbre, the impugned demand notice is in violation of the principle taid down in the aforesaid judgments, procedure laid dorvn under Rulc 26 of the TSMMC Rutes. 7-a. W.P. 27699 of 2024, 4th respondent ADM&G, has issued show cause notice dated 08.05.2024 based on ETS report dated

07.02.2024 to which the petitioncr sent a detailed reply on

04.03 .2024 Contending that quarry operations were carried out strictly within the leased area, and the alleged discrepancies arose only due to a shitt lrom the earlier chain survey to the ETS/DGPS method. lt is further contended that the entire quantity excavated was supplied for Government works through licensed crushers,, and the seigniorage t'ee has already been deducted at source under t.l F,t.l \t l' \,, llr-,18 ol 102.1 & batclr G.O.Ms. No. Iil I 999, leaving r1o loss to the Strrte, irence, no penalty is liablc. flrther pctitioners also subrnitted the copics of docurnents as proof with the sanre .'I'herealter, .,1'r' respondent has issued demand notice, dated 19.06.2024 directing petitioner to pay Rs. 4,28,909/ along with ten times penalty ol Rs. 12,1t9,0901- ten times the nornral seigniorage f-ees, The same is inpuened in the present rvrit petition. 7-b. Perusal ol'the said irnpugned dernand notici: u,ould reveal that there is no consideration ol' tl.rc contcnli.rns laised and enclosure attached by the petitioner in the reply dated 04.03.2024 and there is no _iustification in irnposing rnarirnrrn.r pcrralty ol l0 times. 7-c. There lore, the impugned demand noticc i ; in r iolation of the principle laid dow,n in the aforesaid.judgrnents, procedure laid down under Rule 26 of the TSMMC Rulcs.

8. W.P.No. 26394 oI 2024,4't'respondent AI)N'I&Ci. has issued show causc notice dated 21 .05.2024 pursuant to Ir l!i survey repoft dated 17.10.2023, the petitioncr lailed to subnrit a lc;rly to the above shou cause notice due to scvere vira l-evcr. further respondent No. 4 issued a demand nolicc dated -l I 07.2()24 levying _l _i Kt...r N I) No 12748 of 202.1 & batch Rs. 18,72,44,857/- towards nonnal seigniorage lee along with penalty i.e. normal seignioragc l'ee Rs.2,62,24,7701- and penalty of Rs. 13,11,23,850/- ten tirnes the nonnal seigniorage fee and other statutory amounts of Rs. 2,98'96 ,2371- and the same demand noticc is challenged in this writ petition.

9. W.P. No.26117 of 2024, 4't' respondent ADM&G has issued show cause notice dated 05.06.2024 basing on ETS Survey report datcd 26.03.2023, the petitioner l-ailed to submit a reply to the above show cause notice contcnding that he rvas not well, suffering u,ith viral fever. However' 4't' respondent issued a demand notice dated 12.08.2024 demanding an amount ol Rs' 10,5 1,08'178/- ie' normal seigniorage lec Rs. 1,29,27,5251-, penalty of Rs' 7,'74,43,2751- ten times the notmal seigniorage fee and another statutory amount of Rs I,'17,37,378/-' The same demand notice is challenged in this writ petili()n. I0. W.P. No 26123 of 2021,4'h respondent ADM&G' has issued show cause notice dated 20'06'2024 basing on the ETS survey report dated 26.03.2023, the petitioner failed to submit a reply to the above shorv cause notice due to illness' further rcspondent no. 4 issued a demand notice dates 12 '08 '2024 levying i6 I t..] \1 ' \ti llllS.l lllll & brrljh Rs. 5,08,75.106/- i.e. norrnal seignioragc lee Rs. 71,25.365/- and penalty Rs. 3,56,26,825/- l0 times the normal seir.niorage lee and other statutory arrounts to Rs 81,22,916/- and thi sante dernand no(ice is chirllerrged in this rarit petetion 11-a. W.P. No. 2306tt of 2024,4'r' respondcnr AI)M&G, has issued shoq,cause notice dated 24.05.2024 basing on [..'l'S survey report dated 2).03.2021. Petitioncr failetl to subnrir e repl-r to the above shou cause notice contending that he has rot recei',,ed the said show cause notice. -fhercafter, 4'h rcsporr..lent has issued dernand notice dated 03.08.2024 directing the pe ri[i, rncr r() pav an amount of' Rs. 6,34,12,768t- i.e. normal :eiunioragc fee Rs. 88,81,3.10/-, penalti' of' Rs. 4,214,06,700/- ten r nrc-s rhe norrnal seigniorage f-ee and othcr statutory amounts to lis I ,01,24,778/-. The same is impugned in the present writ petition. Il-b. Petitioncr has specilically contencled ihrt he has not received thc said show cause notice. Ther-e is spcr ilic ussel.tion to the said ellect in paragraph No. -5 of writ affidavit. F_r cn Lhen, there is r-ro denial of the same by the 4rh respondent and hr' has not llled prool of scrvice of the said show cause nolice o r thc petitioner. However, in the irnpugned dernand norice, he has a egcd that the -r7 kl -J w I' No 12748 of202{ & batch petitioner f'ailed to submit cxplanation dcspite receipt of show causc notice. Therefore, 4th respondent cannot contend that petitioner failed to submit explanation despite receipt of show cause notice in the absence of proof of service of tlre said show cause notice on the petitioner. Thus,the this impugned demand notice dated 03.08.2024 is arbitrary, in violation of the procedure laid down under Rule 26 of -ISMMC Rules, and the principle laid down in the aforesaid j udgments.

12. W.P.No.27298 of 2024,4'r'respondent ADM&G, has issued show cause notice dated 05 .06.2024 basing on the ETS survey report dated 26.03.2023, the petitiorrer failed to submit a reply to the above show cause notice due to illness, further respondent No. 4 issued a demand notice dates 06.08.2024 levying Pts.9,44,29,4871- towards normal seigniorage f'ee along rvith penalty i.e. normal seigniorage fee Rs. 1,03,20,7651- and pcnalty Rs. 7,23,43,050/- ten times the normal seigniorage lee and other statutory amounts to Rs l,l7 ,65,6':.21- and the same demand notice is challenged in this writ petetion

13. W.P.No.27265 of 2024, 4'h rcspondent ADM&G issued a show cause notice dated 26.06.2.0)4 basing on the ETS survey i8 I.r \\ t) \r lrts t'l lrll & h r(h report dated 25.03.2023, the petitioner failed to s,rtrmit a reply to the above shorv cause noticc due lo illness, lurther rcspondent no.4 issued a demand notice dates 20.08.2024 ler'ryinr lts. 921,56,0381 towards normal seigniorage fee along with penalty i.e. nortnal seigniorage lee Rs. 13,24,3751- and penalty Rs. tr6,21,875/- ten tirnes the nornral seigniorage fee and other statuto ] amounts to Rs | 5.09.788/- and the same demand notice is challcnqcd in this rvrit petltron t4 W.P. No 25183 of 2024,4't'respondent ADM&G issued a slrorv cause notice datedO8 .07 .2024 based on I :- 'li su n'cv lcpon clated 27.08.2022 and 29.08.2022, the petitioner l:ilcd to sr:brnit a Lcply to the above show cause noticc due tt illness. firrther respondent no. 4 issued a dcn-rand notice dates 20 ()8 102.1 levling Rs. 65,49,62.221l- towards nonraI seignioragc ''ee along ivith penalty ie normal seigniorage fee I{s.8,27,67,685 - ancl penaltv Rs 11 ,78,39,3751- I0 times the normal seigniorag-' I'ec ar.rcl other statutory amounts to Rs 9,43,55, [(r I /- and the sanrc dcurand notice is challenged in this rvrit petetion

30. In the light olthe albresaid discussion, as riiscusscd supra. this ('oLrrt is o1' t.he considered opiniorr that 4'h resl-rorldcnl Assistant i9 KI-.J W P No 117.18 ol l02J & batch Director, Mines and Geology, has power/j urisdiction to initiate proceeding under Rulc 26 ol thc TSMMC Rules and also levy penalty, provided he shall follow the procedure laid down under Rule 26 of the Rutes, principles of natural justice, consider the contentions raised by the petitioners in the reply and docutnents filed atong with the reply, offer fair hearing and issue demand noticc. He has to justify his action of imposing maximum penalty of ten tirnes,, pt' Ptouito to Rule 26 13) of the Rules 1966. He also has to consider the afbresaid aspects'

31. As discussed supra, in the present batch of cases' 4th respondent Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, failed to follow the said procedure and lailed to consider the aforcsaid aspects' He has imposed maximum penalty of ten times without assigning any reasons'

32. It is also apt to note that 4'r' respondent has issued impugned demand notices demanding the aloresaid hugc amount (details are specifically mentioned supra) including maximum penalty of ten times withoutfollowingdueprocedurelaiddownundcrlarvincludinglair opportunity to the Petitioner'

33. It is also apt to note that in some cases' though the petitioners areContendingthattheylaitedtosubmittheexplanationstotheshow cause notices on the ground of suffering with Viral fever' they havc not l 1 4o \l r \'. I' \(, l.lr1S01:r)li& hJ,.h tiled anl proof or- the same and they have not submitt:rr a lett.er to the 4,r, rcspondcnt scc'king more time to submit explanation :,r^ting trrat thev are suttcring rvith vilal fever. Therelore, they arc also at lrLrlt.

34. It is also apt to note that in some casL,:,. petitioners ar.c corltending that.4'r'respondent has issued shou, causc notice basing on ETS/Technical Staff Report/Field Survey Report, but c,.rpies of the same a'c not firnislred to thenr. perusal of the rccord *,oLrrrl re r,cal that the petitioners have not submitted any le11er requesrirru the Assistant [)ircctor to furnish copies the said reports or anv proceedit.rus I infbrrnation rcl-errcd in the said show cause notices. r'rrus. the' are at lau lt.

35. Hou,evcr, as discussed supra, it is the dutv of the 4,r, rc'sponclcr-rt to lbllou, thc procedure mandatory undt:r. Rule 26 o1. the TSMMC Rules. the afbresaid aspects and the principre raid down in the alb'esaid.iudgrne,ts. Havi,g demanded the aforesaid rtr,re arnnunt fiom thc petitioncr-s. .1'h respondent should have lolror., c,d the afbrcsaicl procedule ancl considered the aforesaid aspects. In th: present case, ,1,r, respondent lailed ro lbllow and consider the sarne.

36. In thc light of the arbresaid discussio. ar,d in 'iew or the atbr-esaid lcgal position, to meet the ends oljustice, r,ithout expressing / -lt k l-..1 u | \o ll7.r8 ol202.l & batch any opinion on the same, the impugned demand notices alone are set aside, directing 4th respondent to initiate lresh process by strictly following the procedure laid down under law, the atbresaid aspects and the principle laid down in the aforesaid .ludgments. CONCLUSTON

37. In the result, the:- The writ petitions i.e. W.P. Nos. 12748, 16550, 23068, 25 183, 25651, 26117, 26123, 26391. 27265, 27298, 33461 and 34020 of 2024 are allowed. The impugned demand notices in W.P. Nos. 12748, 16550, 23068, 25183, 25651, 26117, 26123, 26394, 27265, 27298, 31461 and 34020 of 2024 are hereby set aside ttt. W.P.Nos. 15607 and 27699 of 2024 are allowed in part, setting aside only the demand notices by holding that the show-cause notices issued therein are proper. Liberty IS granted to the petitioners to seek inflormation if any frorn Respondent No. 4 ADM&G within (01) week fiom the date of receipt of copy of this order. On receipt of said request, Respondent No. 4 - AI)M&G shatl furnish the same to the petitioners. Therealiel petitioner shall submit reply within (01 ) week 12 \l I) \L llr-lllol lar{tihrr.,r ir' All the 11)atters are rernanded back to thc r.once rnecr Assistant kt .J Dircctor ol'Mincs and Geology, for lresh consirleration, strictly in \" rccordiurcc rvith larv and the principles of nattrral.justice. .f hc pctitioncrs srralr, within one (0 1) rveek fi-onr the date .r' reccipt of a cop)i of this ordcr, subrnit a \\ r. tlen rL_qucst to the Assistant l)irector fbr supply copies of all docLrrLrenls relied upon, incltrding:iurvcy repofts, ETS survey data, inspcclion reports, and anl conncctcd lltatL-l.ial. r"i' Thc Assistant Director shail. within one (0 r ) rveck ther.eafter. suppll tlie rccluesrcd docur-nents/material to thc oetitioners. '['he petirioners shalr, u,irhin one (0r ) week r]rerc,arier. fire their rcplies to the show cause notices, enclosinS anr supporting rnatcrial thcr, u,islr to rcly upon. 'fhe Assist.rt Director shalr. rvithin one (01 ) u,cek riorn rcceipt ol. such replics. consider thc same objectively, e,u,uluatc the quanl_unr ol pc.alt_r'. and pass a fresh, reasoned ri:rna.d notice in accordancc rr ith larr. ix. If' petitioners lail to submit explanations wirhin rhc albresaicl tirnelincs. I_ibcrty is granted to respondent rro.4 ADM&G to proceed lirrthc.r pur.suant to the said show causc r otices. 1-t Kl -.1 W P No I1718 ol20l.l & harch x The Assistant Director is lurther dirccted to record reasons lor conclusions anived at and ensure that the principles ol natural j ustice is lollowed. x1. lt is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations of unauthorized quarryin_e or transporlation, and the authority shalI decide the same independently on the basis of material available and submissions advanced. i8. ln the circumstances of thc case, there shall be no order as to c o sts. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in all the wlit petitions shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-M.JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR a- SECTION OFFICER t/ 1 5 3 2 4 The- Secretary (M11es), 3rd Floor, B.R. Ambedkar Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, State of Telangana at Hyderabad 500 004. The Director of Mines and Geology, H No. 5-922, Flat No's 203 and 204, 2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Shapur Wadi, Adarsh Nagar, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad 500 029. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Warangal Region H.No.1-9-616 / 12, 1st Floor, Vidyuth Nagar, Road No. 2, Near Vishnupriya Garden, Hunter Road, Hanmakonda, Warangal Urban District 506 001. The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Dharmakancha, Jangaon, Telangana 506 '167. Two CCs to GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRI PANNALA SRINIVAS, Advocate IOPUCI One CC to SRI P.VENKAT REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) . One CC to SRI HARI SREEDHAR, Advocate (OPUC) . One CC to SRI BHARATH REDDY BOMM|NEN|, Advocate (OPUC) 0.One CC to SRI GOURIDEVI KRISHNAIAH, Advocate (OPUC) 1'l . One CC to SRI A.SANTHOSH KUiVIAR, Advocate (OPUC) 12. One CC to SRI T.V RAMANA RAO, Advocate (OPUC) '13. One CC to SRI KIRTHI TEJA KONDAVEETI, Advocate (OPUC) 14.Two CD Copies p 4\/ o 7 o I 1 To SA HIGH COURT DATED:2410912025 l' COMMON ORDER WP.NOS: 12748,16550, 23068, 25183, 25651, 26117,, 26123.26394.27265 27298 33461 AND 34020 0F 2024 ALONG WITH W.P.NOS.1 5607 AND 27699 0F 2024 i:'j lr .- 1 z tltu 2925 t- :..- o. \:_j /. ", ALLOWING ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS. t {+- I 't-