1 APHC010791862016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21656/2016 Between: Dr.b.ashok Kumar, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER : This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “……to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Memo No 14805/M I2/20107 dated 30.6.2015 imposing normal seigniorage fee for excavation and transportation of road metal in the leased out area to the petitioner and the consequential orders passed by the 3rd respondent in Proc No 2068/Q1/2006 dated 1.3.2016 as wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjust and contrary to A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice and to pass………….” 2 2. The facts of the case are that the 4th respondent granted quarry lease for road metal over an extent of 1.500 Hectares in Sy.No.241 of Nagampalli Village, Sitanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District for a period of 10 years commencing from 9-5-1996. Later, the lease period was extended by 10 more years vide proceedings No.2068/Q1/06, dt.27-6-2006 by the 3rd respondent. While the things stood thus, the 4th respondent issued a notice in Lr.No. 406/01/2006, dt.16-6-2010 alleging transportation of excess road metal more than the permitted quantity and imposed penalty of Rs.49,38,100/- The petitioner asked the 4th respondent to explain the reasons for transporting excess road metal without valid permits. The petitioner further stated that, while conducting the survey by the Officials of the Department, no notice was issued to the petitioner and the survey was conducted behind his back. Therefore, the petitioner requested the 4th respondent to take up re-survey and pit measurements of the area leased out to the petitioner. But surprisingly, the 4th respondent vide notice No.406/Q1/2006, dt.31-8-2010 directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.24,74,850/-towards normal seigniorage fee along with One Time penalty of Rs.24,74,850/- totaling to the tune of Rs.49,49,700/- within 15 days. Aggrieved by the said notice dated 31.8.2010, the petitioner preferred a revision before the 1st respondent under Rule 35-A of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules (for short “APMMC Rules”). The said revision was disposed of by the 1st respondent vide Memo No.14805/N.I(2)/2010-7, dt.30-6-2015 with a direction to pay normal 3 seigniorage fee of Rs.24,74,850/- for excavation and transportation of road metal for a quantity of 49497 cbms. While the things stood thus, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice No.2068/Q1/2006, dt.10-2-2016 to determine the quarry lease held by petitioner as per Rule 31(XVII) r/w Rule 34 and 26 of APMMC Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice on 19.12.2016. But ultimately the 3rd respondent vide proceedings No.2068/Q1/2006, dated 01.03.2016 determined the lease as per Rule 31 (XVI) of APMMC Rules and further directed the 4th respondent to take action as per rule 31(XVII) of APMMC Rules and also to take action to forfeit the security deposit and also for collection of Mineral revenue dues to the Government. The respondents No.3 and 4 are insisting the petitioner for payment of dues. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. 4. Heard Sri K. Venaktesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition, argued that, due to efflux of time the lease period was over by 8.5.2016. He submits that the in pursuance of the order dated 01.03.2016 the respondents No.3 and 4 are insisting to pay the mineral revenue due in respect of Mining lease held by the petitioner. If the amount is 4 due to the government under rules, the recovery can be affected only by resorting to Revenue Recovery Act as if it is an arrear of Land Revenue. Learned counsel further submits that, the petitioner has sustained heavy loss in mining business due to lack of knowledge and experience in the mining field as the petitioner is Doctor by profession. He submits that the respondents No.3 and 4 can only take steps under Revenue Recovery Act for collection of the mineral revenue dues as per Rule 29 of APMMC Rules. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents opposed for allowing the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 7. Perused the material on record. 8. On a perusal of the material on record, it is observed that, aggrieved by the proceedings dated 31.8.2010 issued by the 4th respondent, the petitioner preferred revision before the 1st respondent. It is further observed that, during pendency of the said revision, the petitioner preferred WP No.21129/2011 before this Court seeking to allow him to conduct mining operations in respect of area leased out to him. This Court vide order dated 8.9.2011 has granted interim direction to carry on with the quarrying operations subject to payment of demand seigniorage fee to an amount of Rs.24,69,050/- on or before 31.10.2011. Thereafter, the revision filed by the 5 petitioner was disposed of by the 1st respondent with a direction to pay normal seigniorage fee of Rs.24,74,850/- for excavation and transportation of road metal for a quantity of 49497 cbms., and set aside the demand to the extent of penalty. Later, the said Writ Petition in WP No.21129/2011 was dismissed at the request of the petitioner’s counsel, vide order dated 30.06.2021. 9. Further, this Court, on 29.10.2024 has directed the respondents to get instructions whether the amount is recovered from the petitioner or not. But till now the respondents are unable to get the status. 10. As per Rule 29 of Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 reads as under: 29. Notice of assumption of management: - Notice of the assumption of management shall forthwith be served on the defaulter in the manner prescribed in Section 25, and shall be notified by public proclamation on the land and by publication in the District Gazette. 11. So, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that, though this Court put a query on 29.10.2024, that, whether the amount is recovered from the petitioner or not, the respondents have not filed any proof to that effect. So, if at all any amount due to the Government, as per Government Rules, it can be recovered only by resorting to Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore, this Court found no merit in the instant petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, if at all grievance subsists, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authority for redressal of his grievance. No costs. 13. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications in the writ petition, shall stand closed. ______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : -02-2025 Gvl 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No:21656 of 2016 Date : 07.02.2025 Gvl