1 APHC010749072016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 25288/2016 Between: Radiant Developers ...PETITIONER AND Secy Industries Commerce Dept Hyd 3 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N SHOBA 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: “…..declaring the Proceedings of ADMG in Proc.No.516/TP/2010, dated 20.12.2010 and 22.11.2010 and the action of Respondent No.1 in Memo No.1301/M.I(2)/2016-1, dated 12.07.2016 directing the Petitioner to deposit normal seigniorage fee along with two times penalty on earth and boulders used in levelling of the land as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unconstitutional and in violation of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and 2 consequently call for records in the said proceedings and set aside the same and direct the authorities to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner and pass such other order or orders…..” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is one of the prestigious developer engaged in the activity of development. In the course of its business, the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA) has allotted Ac.50.00 cents of land in Sy.No.336(P) at Rishikonda Village, Visakhapatnam Rural on a joint venture development and entered into a joint venture with the petitioner for development of the said land for utilization of “Mega Housing Project”. In consequence thereof, the works are commenced in the year 2010. On request made by near Pattadar, for filling up of their low lying area from floods, the petitioner has submitted application to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, for issuance of temporary permit for gravel (soil) for 50000 cbm, who in turn, has inspected the project area and on his advice, the petitioner had deposited Rs.5,00,000/- on 22.03.2010. Thereupon, the said proposals were forwarded to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, who in turn, accorded permission for extraction of 66.775 cbm of gravel and 44,516 cbm of building stone in the area of 50 acres in Sy.No.336(P), Rishikonda, Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam Rural. The petitioner had also deposited Rs.8,00,000/- towards seigniorage fee and had submitted a letter on 25.10.2010. While so, on 23.09.2010, the technical staff of respondent authorities had visited the area of the petitioner and basing on the survey report, the 1st 3 respondent has issued a show-cause notice No.516/TP/2010, dated 29.09.2010 on the alleged ground that gravel is transported outside the project without permission and without any way bills. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted detailed explanation on 03.11.2010 and also requested for issuance of permit on 15.11.2010. The 4th respondent vide letter dated 15.11.2010, has issued temporary permit for 40,000 cbm of gravel and 2400 cbm of building stone and sought dispatch particulars of the temporary permit with total estimated quantities. Even before the petitioner could submit reply to the 4th respondent, the petitioner has received demand notice No.516/TP/2010, dated 22.11.2010 directing him to pay normal seigniorage fee along with five times penalty. Thereupon, the petitioner has approached the 4th respondent and has submitted representation dated 02.12.2010 and submitted all the relevant material. Consequently, the 4th respondent has issued a revised demand notice stating that the reply submitted is not satisfactory, confirming the earlier demand notice dated 22.11.2010 and directed the petitioner to pay normal seigniorage fee along with five times penalty. Challenging the demand notice, the petitioner has preferred revision on 07.01.2011, but without affording any opportunity to the petitioner for hearing, the revision petition was disposed of vide Memo No.7222/M.I(2)/2011-5, dated 04.11.2015. Aggrieved by the orders passed in the revision petition, the petitioner filed W.P.No.36853 of 2015. The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 07.12.2015 setting aside the impugned memo dated 04.11.2015 4 and remanded the matter back to the revisional authority for fresh consideration by giving due opportunity to the petitioner. Thereafter, the revision was heard on 22.04.2016 and the 1st respondent has passed orders in the revision in Memo No.1301/M.I(2)/2016-1, dated 12.07.2016, based on the reports submitted by the respondents 2 and 4. The entire proceedings of the revisional authority are totally arbitrary and illegal. Hence the present writ petition is filed. 3. This Court vide order dated 02.08.2016 has granted interim order, which reads as under: “Having regard to the G.O.Ms.No.139, Industries & Commerce (M.I) Department, dt.12.11.2013, which exempts payment of seigniorage fee for leveling the land for civil purposes other than mining purposes and since the nature of business of the petitioner as a developer is undisputed, prima facie, the impugned Memo No.1301/M.I(2)/2016-1, dt.12.07.2016 of the 1st respondent is unsustainable. Therefore, there shall be interim stay as prayed for.” 4. The 4th respondent has filed counter. While denying the contents of the writ petition, he stated that, the order passed by the revisional authority in Memo No.1301/M.I(2)/2016-1, dated 12.07.2016 directing the petitioner to deposit normal seigniorage fee along with two times of penalty for transporting earth and boulders outside the premises is legal and just and in accordance with the MMRD Act, 2015 and APMMC Rules, 1966 and further stated that G.O.Ms.No.139, dated 12.11.2013 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. Further stated that under Rule 5 of APMMC Rules, 1966, no 5 person shall undertake quarrying of any minor mineral in any area except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of quarry lease or a permit granted under these rules, hence digging trench also comes under the purview of mining Rules. Hence, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard Mrs.P.Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel, representing Mrs.N.Shoba, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.P.Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. 6. Perused the material available on record. 7. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the specific directions given by the composite High Court on 07.12.2015, the revisional authority failed to appreciate the material produced by the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 12.07.2016 and the 1st respondent passed the impugned order only based on the reports submitted by the respondents 2 and 4. The petitioner argues that this action violates the principles of natural justice. 8. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader contends that the revisional authority, after considering the material available on record only, has passed the impugned order in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. Further stated that the decision was taken based on the inspection reports and other relevant documents and that no further hearing was necessary as the issue had been sufficiently considered. 6 9. Having regard to the submissions made by both learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, it appears that the petitioner had raised several grounds in the revision petition filed before the 1st respondent, narrating about the veracity of the inspection and survey proceedings. These are significant issues that warranted a full and fair consideration. Hence, the impugned revisional order passed by the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside. 10. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned revisional order in Memo No.1301/M.I(2)/2016-1, dated 12.07.2016, passed by the 1st respondent and the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent for fresh hearing and consideration, by taking into consideration the grounds urged in the revision and explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date: 27.01.2025 ARR 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.25288 of 2016 Date : 27.01.2025 ARR