APHC010901672016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 28670/2016 Between: M/s.viking Shipping Chennai Pvt-ltd., ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKAT REDDY DONTHI REDDY 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 or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned Letter No.15605/M.I(2)/2015-1, dtd.18.07.2016 rejecting the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner Company which is arbitrary, illegal, unjust, against the principles of natural justice and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Art 14, 19 & 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to give the opportunity to the Petitioner to contest the Revision on merits and to dispose of the same in accordance with law…….” 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner company engaged in the ship broking service, stevedoring service, bulk and project cargo logistic service, container liner agency service and into consultancy. The petitioner company is established in 1997 and has got its branch offices at various parts of India and transports the extracted granite blocks from the quarry lease area to different ports for exporting the same to various countries. While so, the 4th respondent issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner company vide Lr.No.387/Granite/2012 dated 26.02.2014 stating that there were over writing/ corrections in the seven transit forms and the petitioner company is asked to give explanation for evading the seigniorage fee along with penalty amount of Rs.5,99,874/-. The said notice was issued under Rule 26(3) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The petitioner company has submitted reply on 10.03.2014. Notwithstanding the explanation given by the petitioner company, the 4th respondent has issued a demand notice vide No.387/Granite/2012, dated 11.03.2014 asking the petitioner company to pay the normal seigniorage fee of Rs.99,979/- and five times penalty of Rs.4,99,895/- totalling to a tune of Rs.5,99,874/- for invalid transit forms of seven granite blocks due to over writing/correction covering a quantity of 54.993 Cubic Metres colour granite. Accordingly, the petitioner company paid an amount of Rs.99,979/- towards normal seigniorage fee and also paid an income tax of Rs.2,310/-. Further, the 4th respondent issued another demand notice vide No.387/Granite/2012, dated 02.09.2014 directing the petitioner 3 company to pay an amount of Rs.4,99,895/- and stated that the explanation given by the petitioner company is not satisfactory. While things stood thus, the 4th respondent again addressed a reminder vide demand notice No.387/Granite/2012, dated 30.07.2015 directing the petitioner company to pay five times penalty of Rs.4,99,895/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner company has filed revision application on 19.08.2015 before the 1st respondent challenging the demand notice dated 30.07.2015 by paying statutory fee. Without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case before the authorities, the 1st respondent issued order vide Lr.No.15605/M.I(2)/2015-1, dated 18.07.2016 stating that the Revision Application filed by the petitioner company deserves no consideration as there is a delay of one year two months in filing the revision before the authorities. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and mainly contended that the petitioner has filed Revision Application before the Government challenging the reminder demand notice dated 30.07.2015 to waive the penalty with a delay of one year two months and the same was rejected by the Government vide No.15605/M.I(2)/2015-1, dated 18.07.2016, since the Revision Application was not filed within the stipulated time i.e., 90 days from the Original Demand Notice dated 11.03.2014. 4 4. Heard Mr.D.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.P.Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the demand notice challenged in the Revision Application dated 30.07.2015 and the Revision Application is filed on 19.08.2015 and hence there is no delay in filing the revision application as per the mining laws. He further submits that the 1st respondent has not taken into consideration of the normal seigniorage fee paid by the petitioner company. He further submits that the fresh cause of action has arisen through demand notice dated 30.07.2015 issued by the 4th respondent directing the petitioner company to pay an amount of Rs.4,99,895/- towards penalty and for all practical purposes the time for filing of revision starts from 30.07.2015 and not from 11.03.2014, when the initial demand notice was issued. He further submits that the letter/order under challenge is without application of mind and no opportunity is given to the petitioner company to represent their case and the impugned action of the respondent is violative of principles of natural justice and the reasoning for dismissal of Revision Application is not tenable in the eyes of law. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 5 6. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, the petitioner has filed Revision Application on 19.08.2015 before the Government against the Reminder Demand Notice i.e., dated 30.07.2015 instead of Original Demand Notice i.e., dated 11.03.2014. The same was rejected by the Government vide No.15605/M.I(2)/2015-1, dated 18.07.2016 since the Revision Application was not filed within the stipulated time i.e., 90 days from the date issuing of original Demand Notice dated 11.03.2014 against the demand notice. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the record. 8. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the 1st respondent vide Letter No.15605/M.I(2)/2015-1, dated 18.07.2016 held as follows: “The Revisional Authority has examined the revision application in the light of APMMC Rules, 1966 and held that the revision application filed by M/s Viking Shipping Chennai Pvt ltd., Kakinada, East Godavari District, deserves no consideration for condonation of the delay as per Rule 35-C of APMMC Rules, 1966, thus Revision Application is not in consonance with the Rule 35-A of APMMC Rules, 1966, as it was filed with a delay of (01) year (02) months, and the revision applicant has not submitted reasons neither in Form J nor grounds of Revision. Hence the Revision Application is rejected, duly returning the revision application in original.” 6 9. In a case of Tarun Kumar Jhawar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others1, wherein a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, held as follows: “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.” 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, without giving any opportunity, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned letter No.15605/M.I(2)/2015-1, dated 18.07.2016, is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition, while setting aside the impugned order, remanded back the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The impugned order vide letter No.15605/M.I(2)/2015-1, dated 18.07.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration with a direction to consider the matter afresh, by giving ample opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate reasoned orders, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 1 W.P.No.34460 of 2015, dated 14.10.2015 7 12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 21-02-2025 BMS