1 APHC010656022018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 31688/2018 & 33027/2018 Between: M/s. Yerrithatha Minerals ...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: COMMON ORDER : WP No.31688 of 2018 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief: “… to issue an order writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent in issuing the Demand Notice No 80/M2/2013, dated 14.08.2018 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unconstitutional and contrary to Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules 1966 and the rules made there under apart from being violation of Articles 14 and 300A of the constitution of India and consequently call for records in the demand Notice No 80/M2/2013 dated 14.08.2018 and set aside the same and pass….” 2 WP No.33027 of 2018 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief: “….to issue an order writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent in issuing the Demand Notice No 1222/M2/2003 dated 24.08.2018, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unconstitutional and contrary to Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules 1966 and the rules made there under apart from being violation of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently call for records in the demand Notice No 1222/M2/2003 dated 24.08.2018 and set aside the same and pass…” 2. As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order. 3. Since the facts in all the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.31688 of 2018 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience. 4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had established Pulverizing unit in the year 2013 for crushing of Dolomite, White Shale, Limestone in Sy.No.351, of Chandana Village, Yadiki Mandal, Anantapuramu District and also obtained Mineral Dealer Licence from 3rd respondent on 17.12.2013 vide MDR Licence No.1188/ADL/ 2013 which is valid for 5 years i.e. upto 16-12-2018. It is further stated that the 4th respondent i.e. Asst. Director of Mines and Geology (Vigilance), Gooty, inspected the unit on 25-07- 2018 and taken physical measurements of the possessed stocks in the unit and estimated the quantity of various sizes of minerals and requested the petitioner Unit to submit documents towards proof for payment of seigniorage fee for the available stocked quantity. Subsequently 4th respondent issued a 3 show cause notice No. 549/Vg-Gooty/Dolomite/2018 dated 04-08-2018 requesting to produce the documentary evidence for the noticed quantity i.e., 354 MT of Dolomite. While the matter stood thus, the 5th respondent i.e. Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Tadipatri also inspected the very same crushing unit on 26-07-2018 and issued another Show Cause Notice No. 80/M2/2013, dated 30-07-2018 stating that the 5th respondent along with technical staff and the V.R.O have inspected the crusher unit area on 26-07- 2018 and assessed the available stocks at crushing unit and requested to produce MDL registration and the documentary evidence in token of having paid the Seigniorage fee for the quantities and subsequently issued Demand Notice No.1222/M2/2003, dated 24.08.2018 demanding an amount of Rs.32,92,800/- towards normal seigniorage fee and cots of the mineral Rs.41,167,000/- totaling to Rs.74,08,800/- for the quantity of 41,160 MT of Dolomite. Challenging the same the present writ petition came to be filed. 5. This Court vide order dated 05.09.2018 in I A No.1 of 2018 in WP No.31688 of 2018, while issuing Rule Nisi, has granted interim direction as under: “Subject to payment of normal seigniorage fee of Rs.467,76,720/- within a period of three weeks from today, there shall be interim order as prayed for. It is made clear that, if the petitioner fails to comply with the same , respondents are entitled to proceed in accordance with law.” 6. Further, as this Court dealt with an identical issue and passed the interim order in the above writ petition i.e., in WP No.31688of 2018, on the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No.33027 of 4 2018, this Court vide order dated 14.09.2018, in IA No.1 of 2018 in WP No.33027 of 2018 has passed similar interim order, which reads as under: “…..In those circumstances, there shall be interim stay as prayed for, subject to condition of the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.32,92,800/- towards normal seignioratge fee, within a period of three weeks from today. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to comply with the same, the respondents are entitled to proceed in accordance with law.” 7. The counter affidavit has been filed by respondents No.1 to 5 in WP No.33027 of 2018. While denying all the allegations made in the petition inter alia contended that, in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 24.08.2018 issued by the 5th respondent, the petitioner has submitted a letter dated 16.8.2018 stating that 2,040 Mts, as the documentary evidence in proof of token of having paid the Seig. Fee, MDR License No.1239/ADL/2014 issued on 25.6.2014 which is valid upto 24.06.2019 and the petitioner has failed to submit the stock and dispatch register. It is further stated that the local villagers of Chandana (V) Yadiki(M) submitted several representations on pollution from the crusher and bore blasting in SyNo.328 of Chandana (V) Yadiki (M) As such the petitioner M/s Ganesh Minerals is herby requested to pay an amount of Rs.32,92,800/-towards Normal Seig. Fee and Rs.41,16,000/- towards Cost of Mineral to the Government Head of accounts for illegal procurement of Dolomite mineral at the petitioner crusher premises within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice failing which necessary action will be initiated for the recovery of amount as per the Amended Mineral Dealer License Rules 2017 ;and AOMMC Rules 1966. Hence the action of 5 the 5th respondent is correct in accordance with APMMC Rules 1966 and APMD Rules 2017. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8 Heard Sri K. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents. 9. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the petitions, submits that, though the petitioner has submitted detailed explanation to the show cause notice issued by the 3rd respondent without considering any of the submission made by the petitioner issued the demand notices by the 5th respondent is highly illegal and arbitrary. Therefore learned counsel requests this Court requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 10. Per contra, learned Government Pleader opposed for allowing the writ petitions and prayed to dismiss the writ petition as the 5th respondent has rightly issued the impugned Demand notice and there is no error on the part of the 5th respondent. 11. Perused the material available on record. 12. On hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels and on perusing the material on record, this Court observed that, while the petitioner carrying the crushing operations the 4th respondent-Assistant Director of Mines and Geology inspected the unit and taken physical measurements of 6 the possessed stocks in the unit and estimated the quantity of various sizes of minerals and requested the petitioners to submit documents towards proof for payment of seigniorage fee for the available stocked quantity. Thereafter, the 5th respondent-the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Tadipatri has also inspected the very same crushing unit and issued another show cause notice. 13. It is the contention of the petitioners that in pursuant to the show cause notices, the petitioners herein have submitted their explanations but without conducting any enquiry and without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners, the impugned proceedings were issued . 14. As seen from the impugned proceedings, wherein, the petitioners were requested to pay the amounts towards Normal Seig. Fee and towards Cost of Mienral to the head of accounts for illegal procurement of Dolomite mineral at their crusher premises within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. 15. In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others 1 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". 1 AIR 1999 SC 22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998 7 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). 16. The instant case falls in one of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here. 17. On hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that, the 5th respondent without considering the reasons and without applying its mind, has issued the proceedings under Demand Notices vide Demand Notice No.80/M2/2013, dated 14.08.2018 and Demand Notice No.1222/M2/2003, dated 24.08.2018. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and this Court is inclined to remand back the matter to the 5th respondent for proper appreciation. 18. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings under Demand Notice No.80/M2/2013, dated 14.08.2018 issued by the 5th respondent in WP No.31688 of 2018 and Demand Notice No.1222/M2/2003, dated 24.08.2018 issued by the 5th respondent. Further, the matter are remanded back to the 5th respondent to conduct fresh enquiry by reexamining the issue after affording ample opportunity of hearing of the petitioners, and pass appropriate orders, in 8 accordance with law, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy o this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. __________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : 24-01-2025 Gvl 9 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO W.P. Nos.31688 and 33027 of 2018 Date : 24.01.2025 Gvl