APHC010393322016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22528/2016 Between: Taru Kumar Jhawar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K NAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP) The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue an order writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent by vide Memo No.16503/M.I(2)/2015-2, dated 02-04-2016 in directing the petitioner to pay one time penalty together with normal seigniorage as illegal arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles and 19(1)(g) of the constitution of India and also contrary to the intent and purpose of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and rules made there under and set aside the said memo to the extent of directing the petitioner to pay 2 one time penalty together with normal seigniorage fee…….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.1.17 cents in Survey No.3/2 and 3/3, H.S.Peta Village, Nellimarla Mandal, Vizianagaram district (for short “subject property”). The officials of Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer (FAC), Srikakulam inspected the petitioner land on 12.03.2013 and requested to furnish Minor Minerals utilized for the works executed by the petitioner company. The petitioner company submitted all the details including royalty paid Mines Way Bills for consumed Minor Minerals in the works. The Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer sent a letter dated 18.03.2013 requesting the petitioner to submit mines bills for minor minerals consumed for levelling the land by the petitioner. The petitioner received Show-Cause notice dated 17.05.2013 from the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued a demand notice vide No.1772/Vg/2013-2, dated 20.06.2013, directing the petitioner to pay normal seigniorage fee and five times penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed revision before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent had partly allowed the revision petition vide Memo No.16503/M.I(2)/2015-2, dated 02.04.2016. Against the revisional order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.34460 of 2015 before this Court and the same was allowed vide order dated 14.10.2015 setting aside the memo and remanded the matter to revisionary authority for fresh consideration and further directed 3 to give due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order. The 1st respondent without providing any opportunity of hearing, passed the impugned order stating that no evidence has been produced before the Revisional Authority in support of payment of Seigniorage fee as contested in the Revision Application and holding that the petitioner is liable to pay one time penalty together with normal seigniorage fee vide Memo No.16503/M.I(2)/2015-2, dated 02.04.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. This Court, vide order, dated 02.08.2016, granted stay for payment of one time penalty together with normal seigniorage fee vide Memo No.16503/M.I(2)/2015-2, dated 02.04.2016. 4. Though the writ petition is filed in the year 2016, so far, the respondents have not filed any counter till date. 5. Heard Mr.K.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.P.Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, when the petitioner purchased subject property, the land was flooded with huge quantity of rubbish i.e., waste dump of old gravel and tar road layers which is extracted/removed when widening road. He further submits that the 3rd respondent failed to consider all 4 the bills in original submitted to the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer and the 3rd respondent on 21.06.2013. Further, the explanation of the petitioner submitted on 21.06.2013 is not taken into consideration. He further submits that, as regards to Metal and Sand Stone, the utilization for which proof is produced to the Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, as well as the respondent herein and without verifying the records/documentary proofs produced before him, raised demands which are arbitrary and illegal. He further submits that, in any event, excavating and refilling within the premises doesn’t attract definition of “quarry” and doesn’t fall within the rules and guidelines of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. Hence, the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as seigniorage fee. He further submits that the 1st respondent erroneously and without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the impugned order merely stating that no evidence has been produced before the Revisional Authority in support of payment of Seigniorage fee as contested in the Revision Application and holding that the petitioner is liable to pay one time penalty together with normal seigniorage fee vide Memo No.16503/M.I(2)/2015-2, dated 02.04.2016. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 5 7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed for grant of any relief in the Writ Petition and prays to dismiss the same. 8. Perused the record. 9. On a perusal of the material on record, it appears that, this Court allowed the writ petition vide W.P.No.34460 of 2015, vide order dated 14.10.2015 with the following observation: “It is a settled position of law that a quasi-judicial authority must necessarily record reasons underlying the order passed by such authority while exercising statutory appellate/revisionary powers. The impugned Memo dated 17.08.2015 does not fulfil this requirement. On this short ground, the impugned Memo dated 17.08.2015 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the revisionary authority for consideration of the petitioner’s revision afresh. The revisionary authority shall give due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order.” 10. In view of a close scrutiny of the impugned order dated 02.04.2016 shows, as rightly argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, the 1st respondent has issued proceedings, without conducting any enquiry. 11. Therefore, it is needless to emphasize the order is devoid of reasons and bereft of following the principles of natural justice. In similar circumstances, a learned Single Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, having found that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner therein and his explanation was not considered by the authority, set aside the impugned order of termination of the petitioner therein from the 6 service and directed the concerned authority to pass appropriate order after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner. The said order squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. 12. In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others1 regarding maintainability of writ petition in the context of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, the Apex Court held thus: “14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose". 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in atleast three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged (emphasis supplied).” The instant case falls in one of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here. 13. On considering the submissions of the learned counsels and upon perusing the entire material on record, as the respondents not filed counter till date, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the respondents ought to have given opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, while 1AIR 1999 SC 22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998 7 passing the impugned order vide Memo No.16503/M.I(2)/2015-2, dated 02.04.2016. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present writ petition. 14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of both the counsel, the impugned order vide Memo No.16503/M.I(2)/2015-2, dated 02.04.2016 issued by the 1st respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent with a direction to conduct fresh enquiry and pass appropriate reasoned orders, by giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 16. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 10-01-2025 BMS