APHC010150792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 7996/2025 Between: G Praveen Chandra ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKAT CHALLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following: ORDER: The writ petition is directed against the order of the 1st respondent dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner against the order of 4th respondent imposing seigniorage fee and penalty of Rs.8,46,374/-. 2. Pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the 4th respondent to show cause as to why the seigniorage fee and penalty at 5 times of seigniorage fee should not be levied for transporting 1488 cub.mtrs of road metal and building stone, misusing the transit forms, in violation of Rule 34(1) 2 of APMMC Rules, 1966, the petitioner has submitted its explanation. However, the 4th respondent without considering the explanation passed the order levying seigniorage fee and penalty at 5 times of seigniorage fee. Against the said order the petitioner has preferred Revision petition before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has passed the impugned order rejecting the case of the petitioner. It is contended that the order is passed without considering the objections raised by the petitioner and is not a reasoned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of this court in W.P.No.12949/20, wherein it is observed as follows: “9. As seen from the impugned order, it is evident, the revisional authority has merely extracted the grounds raised by the petitioner running into three pages and further the remarks called for from the Director of Mines and Geology running into three pages. Except extracting the same in the order, there is no consideration of the grounds raised by the petitioner. The order ultimately after referring the grounds and remarks called for thereon. 10. As set out in the judicial precedents referred to above, the 1st respondent is under a statutory obligation to pass reasoned orders after considering the grounds raised in the revision and the material in support of the contentions raised therein. The 1st respondent has to pass a speaking order by giving the reasons as to why the contentions deserves no consideration and for arriving at the decision. However, in the present case the same is lacking and the order impugned, is therefore violative of principles of natural justice and fundamental principles of Administrative Law.” 3 3. Placing reliance on the above decision, the impugned order, dated 06.12.2021 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. Pending consideration of the Revision Petition, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for recovery of the demand pending against the petitioner. 4. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 03.04.2025 MSI 4 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 7996/2025 Date: 03.04.2025 MSI