Ghanta Suresh Kumar vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Raghunandan Rao, J

The petitioner was served with a demand notice No.4473-10/Vig/2018, dated 16.10.2018 calling upon him to pay certain penalties amounting to Rs.64,13,344/-.

Aggrieved by the said demand notice the petitioner had approached the 1st respondent by way of a revision under Rule 35-A of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. This revision was dismissed vide Memo No.10685/M.I(2)/2018, dated 06.04.2022. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition.

Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order suffers from various infirmities both on merits and on account of violation of principles of natural justice. He would submit that the said order has been passed without issuing appropriate notice and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He would also submit that the order does not set out any reasons and as such violates the basic requirement of principles of natural justice.

The learned Government pleader for Mines and Geology submits that the order of dismissal sets out the grounds for dismissal and that the said order has been passed after hearing the petitioner.

Without going into the question whether the petitioner had given adequate opportunity or not, this writ petition can be disposed of on the ground that the order does not contain any reasons.

It is settled law that quasi judicial orders of this nature have to contain reasons. Non-furnishing of reasons in such an order would amount to violation of principles of natural justice as it would not be clear as to whether the authority has applied its mind or not. Further, furnishing of reasons enables the higher authority to review the order in a proper manner. Non-furnishing of reasons would clearly handicap the higher authority and has been deprecated by the Courts.

In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order in Memo No.10685/M.I(2)/2018, dated 06.04.2022, with a direction to the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say, the order passed by the 1st respondent shall contain reasons. The respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner, till the revision is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.