1 APHC010859742016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] MONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 18730/2016 Between: Sr.dy.gm(legal), M/s.ramco Cements Ltd, Krishna Dist ...PETITIONER AND Secy Industries Commerceminesfp Dept Hyderabad 3 and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K RAJI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP) 2. HARINATH N (DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA) 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 a writ or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the demand notices bearing number 436/M/2001, 74/M/2003, 341/M/2003 and 2199/M/2006 all dated 23.10.2015 issued by the 3rd Respondent in so far as demanding the Contributions towards National Mineral Exploration Trust retrospectively i.e., from 12.01.2015 to 22.10.2015, as illegal, arbitrary, 2 without jurisdiction and unconstitutional and Consequently set aside the same and Award exemplary costs and to pass such other order or orders…...” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared through virtual hearing and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 3. Perused the material available on record. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in W.P.No.28168 of 2016 and W.P.Nos.28559-28560 of 2016, dated 15.09.2018, wherein the Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka observed at penultimate para of the order, which reads as under: “We are in respectful agreement with the decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Jindal Steel (supra). When NMET was constituted only with effect from 14.08.2015, there was no authority available with the respondents to enforce contribution by a mining lease holder towards NMET with retrospective effect.” 5. On perusal of the above judgment, the High Court of Karnataka while observing that any demand towards NMET before 14.08.2015 was declared as illegal, has set aside the impugned demand notice and made an observation that if any contribution was made by the petitioner towards NMET prior to 14.08.2015, the same was required to be adjusted against future contribution without interest. 6. By following the above judgment, the impugned demand notices are liable to be set aside in terms of the order passed by the High Court of 3 Karnataka in W.P.No.28168 of 2016 and W.P.Nos.28559-28560 of 2016, dated 15.09.2018. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of and the impugned notices bearing Nos. 436/M/2001, 74/M/2003, 341/M/2003 and 2199/M/2006, dated 23.10.2015 are set aside. Further it is made clear that if any contribution is made by the petitioner towards NMET prior to 14.08.2015, the same is required to be adjusted against future contribution without interest. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date: 06.01.2025 ARR 4 HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO Writ Petition No.18730 of 2016 Date: 06.01.2025 ARR