Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Unknown vs High Court Of Andhra Pradesh :: … on 24 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE NO: W.P.No.6857 of 2026
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
03. 24.03.2026 MRK, J
Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate
General appearing through virtual mode and Sri
J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned Central Government
Counsel.
2. The learned senior counsel asserted
multiple grounds, mainly contending that the very
impugned order passed by the 1st respondent
dated 12.02.2026 suffers from gross violation of
principles of Natural Justice, as the same was
passed without giving any opportunity to the
petitioner. He further submits that the 1st
respondent misinterpreted Section 10-A (2) (c) of
the A.P.M.M.D.R. Act (67 of 1957)
3. On the other hand, the learned Advocate
General also raised several contentions inter alia,
that the petitioner is not possessing any valid lease
over the subject property claimed in the lis. He
further submits that the 2nd respondent issued
Memo No.2339252/M.III/2025 dated 11.12.2025 to
the petitioner company, seeking an explanation as
to why the mining lease shall not be revoked, as it
is in violations of statutory provisions enunciated in
Section 10-A (2) (c) of the A.P. M.M.D.R. Act (67 of
1957).
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
Contn...
4. Consequent to the show-cause notice,
petitioner submitted explanation on 26.12.2025,
and the same is pending adjudication before the
2nd respondent. Thus, according to the learned
Advocate General, the very institution of the writ
petition itself is hit by suppression of material facts.
5. Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned Central
Government counsel appearing for the Union/
respondent Nos.1 and 4 submits that the impugned
order was passed in terms of earlier orders dated
29.01.2026 made in W.P.No.505 of 2026 only and
he supported the impugned orders passed by the
1st respondent. He also contended that he will file
elaborate counter, answering the assertions raised
in the writ affidavit, more particularly with regard to
whether prior notice was served on petitioner
before passing of the impugned orders.
6. Having regard to the above facts and
circumstances and also taking into consideration of
the assertions made by the respective counsels a
mere perusal of the interim orders dated
12.02.2026 passed by the 1st respondent indicates
that the same is not inconsonance with the
principles of natural justice. More over, it is against
the specific directions issued by this Court in
W.P.No.505 of 2026.
7. In this context, it is appropriate to extract the
relevant paras in Order dated 29.01.2026 made in
W.P.No.505 of 2026.
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE
“6. Considering the submissions made
by both the learned counsel and on
perusal of the material placed on record,
this Court is of the considered view that
assigning or allotting of the mining code
is an essential and mandatory obligation
on the part of respondent No.1, after
confirmation or execution of lease deed
regarding the lease hold rights in favour
of the petitioner. Therefore, respondent
No.1 is hereby directed to assign or allot
mining code, if the petitioner otherwise
satisfies all other conditions if any, within
a period of two (02) weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this Order.”
8. It is also noted from the impugned orders
that the 1st respondent goes on interpreting the
statutory provisions of Section 10-A (2) (c) of
A.P.M.M.D.R. Act (67 of 1957) including
mentioning the dictums of Supreme Court.
However, prima facie the 1st respondent authority
did not issue any prior notice to the petitioner
before passing the impugned orders.
9. It is well settled that the principles of natural
justice are fundamental and pre-requisite before
passing any judicial or quasi judicial order.
10. At this juncture, it is relevant to note the well
settled legal principles held in Canara Bank v.
Debasis Das, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
Contn…
emphasized the significance of Service of notice
as an essential component of the principles of
natural justice and also the importance of natural
justice. The relevant paragraph from the said
judgment is extracted here under:
“….15. The adherence to principles of
natural justice as recognized by all civilized
States is of supreme importance when a quasi-
judicial body embarks on determining dispute
between the parties, or any administrative
action involving civil consequences is in issue.
These principles are well settled. The first and
foremost principle is what is commonly known
as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one
should be condemned unheard. Notice is the
first limb of this principle. It must be precise
and unambiguous. It should apprise the party
determinatively of the case he has to meet.
Time given for the purpose should be
adequate so as to enable him to make his
representation. In the absence of a notice of
the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the
order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it
is but essential that a party should be put on
notice of the case before any adverse order is
passed against him. This one of the most
important principles of natural justice. It is after
all an approved rule of fair play. The concept
has gained significance and shades with time.
When the historic document was made at
Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory
recognition of this principle found its way into
the “Magna Carta”. The classic exposition of
Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to
“vocate, interrogate and adjudicate”.”
“…16. Principles of natural justice are
those rules which have been laid down by the
courts as being the minimum protection of the
right of the individual against the arbitrary
procedure that may be adopted by a judicial,
quasi-judicial and administrative authority while
making an order affecting those rights. These
rules are intended to prevent such authority
from doing injustice.”
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
Contn...
11. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya
Pradesh1, held that any decision affecting the
rights of a person cannot be taken without giving
that person notice and an opportunity of hearing. It
is also held that the principle of audi alteram
partem is a fundamental aspect of natural justice.
Even if there are allegations of bias or irregularity
in a selection process, the affected candidates
must be impleaded and heard before their
appointments are cancelled. Therefore, it is held
that failure to give notice and hearing to the
affected parties vitiates the decision, and
procedural fairness must be followed before taking
adverse action.
12. In view of the above facts and
circumstances coupled with the legal position,
there shall be interim suspension of impugned
proceedings dated 12.02.2026 of the 1st
respondent for a period of six (06) weeks.
Meanwhile all the respective counsels are directed
to file comprehensive counter affidavits if any.
13. It is needless to mention that, the above
orders does not prevent the 2nd Respondent to
adjudicate the issue arising out of the show-cause
notice vide Memo No.2339252/M.III/2025 dated
Contd…
1
(2025) 7 SCC 545
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
Contn....
11.12.2025 and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law.
Post the matter after four (04) weeks.
_______
MRK, J
RMR