APHC010054162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 2848/2025 Between: M/s Ratna Infrastructure, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G RAJA BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY 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 of MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of 2nd Respondent in disposing and passing orders pursuant to Applications dated 10-04-2024 filed by Petitioner for grant of Temporary Permits over an extent of 0.808 hectares (ac.1.90 cents) in Sy.Nos.120-1, 118, 116-3 and 6 situate in Komaragiri Village, I Polavaram Mandal, DRBR Ambedkar Konaseema District for lifting and transportation of ordinary earth/bondumatti despite granting NOC by Revenue department in Ref.B/108/2024, dt.30-10-2024 and also Mineral Dealers License issued by the Respondents on 11-12-2024 as arbitrary, illegal, 2 irrational, in violation of Principles of Natural justice and contrary to A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 R/w. MM (D and R) Act, 1957 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the Applications dated 10-04-2024 filed by Petitioner for grant of Temporary Permits and to pass appropriate orders pursuant to explanation….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of construction of roads, site filling activity etc. In the course of this business, the petitioner was offered by Central Government authorized company, GSC-LIPIPL (JV) to supply of ordinary earth (bondu matti)/gravel for their project which involves the up-gradation of Port connecting to Vakalapudi Light House (from Km.0.000 to 13.198) section of NH-516F in Andhra Pradesh on EPC mode under Bharatmala Pariyojana, which is a prestigious project of Central Government. A purchase order was also issued to the petitioner company on 14-10-2023. Accordingly, the petitioner took private patta land owned by Smt.Rudraraju Surya Kumari w/o Satyanarayana Raju & others, on lease for lifting and transporting ordinary earth/bondumatti and submitted two applications on 10.04.2024 for grant of Temporary Permits over an extent of 0.808 hectares (Ac.1.90 cents) in Survey Nos.120-1, 118, 116-3 & 6 situate in Komaragiri Village, I.Polavaram Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District duly enclosing requisite documents including payment of challans. Both applications submitted by the petitioner have been forwarded by the 2nd respondent to concerned Tahsildar, seeking a report regarding the classification and availability of the land i.e. NOC. In response, the Tahsildar, I.Polavaram Mandal directed the VRO, Komaragiri and MRI, I.Polavaram to 3 conduct survey and inspection of the subject land and submit a report. Accordingly, the survey was conducted and the report was submitted. Additionally, the Surveyor from the Office of the 2nd respondent also conducted a survey and inspection of the area and submitted his report to the 2nd respondent. Based on these reports, the Tahsildar, I.Polavaram, issued an NOC in Ref.B/108/2024, dated 30.10.2024, recommending the grant of TPs in favour of the petitioner, subject to certain conditions. A copy of the NOC has been forwarded to the 2nd respondent for further action. To store and sell the material, the petitioner is required to obtain an MDRC, which has been issued by the respondents vide MDL0120011561, dated 11.12.2024. However, despite the completion of all formalities, the 2nd respondent, being the competent authority, has not granted the TPs nor disposed of the applications filed by the petitioner. But the respondents are neither considering the applications of the petitioner nor granting Temporary Permits. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard Mr.G.Raja Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Rama Krishna, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, for the respondents. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, when the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent to inquire about the status of the applications and reasons for delay, it was informed that, their office had previously issued 4 a Demand Notice, which is still is pending; hence, the Temporary Permits cannot be granted till the Demand Notice is set aside or closed. He further submits that the 2nd respondent issued Demand Notice, dated 30.10.2021, but the same was set aside by this Court on 29.12.2021 in W.P.No.30492 of 2021. However, liberty is given to 2nd respondent to consider the detailed reply/explanation of the petitioner and pass reasoned order by giving opportunity of being heard and while granting a stay on the Demand Notice till such exercise is completed. He further submits that, in compliance with the said order, the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 07.01.2022 informed the petitioner to attend for personal hearing scheduled for 25.01.2022. However, the petitioner was tested positive for Covid-19 and informed the respondents of his inability to attend the hearing through e-mail, requesting that the scheduled hearing be deferred and the new date of hearing be communicated in advance. As there has been no further communication for the last three years, the petitioner was under the impression that the proceedings would be dropped and that no further demand notice could be issued, especially in light of subsequent changes in the law. This Court has, on two occasions, categorically held that the ADMG/DDMG/DMG/Government has no power or authority to raise or collect any penalty or seigniorage fee, and that such matters fall under the jurisdiction of competent criminal courts. Therefore, the petitioner brought all these facts to the notice of the 2nd Respondent and requested immediate action, as the work being undertaken is related to a 5 national project. He further submits that the apprehension of the 2nd respondent regarding the pending Demand Notice is based on improper verification of records due to the bifurcation and shifting of offices. As of today, there is no demand against the petitioner’s firm, as it was set aside by this Court. Even assuming it is still pending, it does not affect the consideration of the present Temporary Permit applications, as no commercial activity is involved. The petitioner would suffer loss, hardship, and damage to its reputation in the market if the TPs are not granted by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 5. Per Contra, learned Government Pleader vehemently opposed for grant of any relief in the present writ petition and submits that, based on the orders of this Court in W.P.No.30492 of 2021, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Rajamahendravaram, requested the petitioner to attend a personal hearing on 25.01.2022 with supporting documents, in order to comply with the orders of this Court. However, there is no information available regarding whether the appeal has been disposed or not. He further submits that, the District Mines and Geology Officer conducted a personal hearing on 10.02.2025 based on the documents furnished by M/s.Ratna Infrastructures with regards to the present case. The documents submitted by the petitioner were examined, and it was noted that no permission had been granted by the Mines and Geology Department for the excavation and transportation of earth in the subject area. Additionally, the petitioner failed to 6 submit documentary proof of payment of seigniorage fee via challans or demand drafts. It was concluded that the appellant company had clearly evaded the seigniorage fee for the consumed quantity, which is a violation of Rule 26 of the APMMC Rules, 1966. Therefore, the reply along with the documents is not considered, and the penal provisions of the APMMC Rules, 1966, apply for the recovery of Rs.63,25,704/-. Hence, the petitioner is directed to pay the normal seigniorage fee of Rs.5,13,450/-, consideration amount of Rs.5,13,450/-, penalty of Rs.51,34,500/-, DMF of Rs.1,54,035/-, and MERIT of Rs.10,269/-, totaling Rs.63,25,704/- for conducting illegal excavation and transportation of a quantity of 11,410 cubic meters of earth in Survey No.680 of Kedarlanka Village, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, erstwhile East Godavari District, under Rule 26 of the APMMC Rules, 1966. The amount is to be paid in the concerned Head of Account within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice; failing which, necessary action will be initiated to recover the penalty amounts under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. 6. Learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.181, Industries and Commerce (Mines-I) Department, dated 28.05.1998, wherein it was held as follows: “With a view to expedite disposal of Prospecting Licence / Mining Lease and Quarry Lease applications, Government issued orders In G.O.Ms.No.122, Industries & Commerce Department, dt. 07-04-1998, authorising the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology of the concerned district to received applications for Prospecting Licence & Mining Lease In furtherance to the objective of expediting disposal of Prospecting Licence /Mining Lease and Quarry Lease applications, following detailed instructions 7 are issued for strict compliance by all the officers of the Government at different levels. 2. Immediately after receipt of application, the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology shall acknowledge receipt to the applicant, fix a date for inspection and send one set of applications to the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned to report the category of the land and availability of the land for grant of Prospecting Licence/Mining Lease or Quarry Lease. 3. The Mandal Revenue Officer will send his report to the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology within a period of 30 days duly marking a copy of his report to District Collector. The report of the Mandal Revenue Officer need not be routed through the intermediate level of Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector.” 7. Perused the record. 8. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the 2nd respondent had previously issued a Demand Notice dated 30.10.2021, directing the petitioner to pay seigniorage fee along with statutory amounts. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.30492 of 2021 and this Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the demand notice and directed the 2nd respondent to consider the detailed reply/explanation of the petitioner and pass reasoned order by giving opportunity of the petitioner. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 07.01.2022 informed the petitioner to attend for personal hearing scheduled for 25.01.2022. The petitioner, however, failed to attend the personal hearing and instead filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of temporary permits, despite knowing that the earlier demand notice dated 30.10.2021 was still pending before the 2nd respondent, which is improper on the part of the petitioner. Further, during the pendency of the writ petition, the 2nd respondent has conducted personal hearing of the petitioner on 10.02.2025 and found that no permission had 8 been granted by the Mines and Geology Department for the excavation and transportation of earth in the subject area to the petitioner. Additionally, the petitioner failed to submit documentary proof of payment of seigniorage fee via challans or demand drafts. Hence, the 2nd respondent issued Demand Notice No.1228/TP/2024, dated 15.02.2025, directing the petitioner to pay the normal seigniorage fee of Rs.5,13,450/-, consideration amount of Rs.5,13,450/-, penalty of Rs.51,34,500/-, DMF of Rs.1,54,035/-, and MERIT of Rs.10,269/-, totaling Rs.63,25,704/- for conducting illegal excavation and transportation of a quantity of 11,410 cubic meters of earth in Survey No.680 of Kedarlanka Village, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, erstwhile East Godavari District, under Rule 26 of the APMMC Rules, 1966. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that, Rule 34(1) of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 reads as follows: “No minor mineral shall be dispatched from any of the leased areas without a valid permit issued by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology concerned or an officer authorized in this behalf by the Director of Mines and Geology: [Provided that any misuse of the transit forms without paying Seigniorage Fee and not accompanied by the transit forms used by the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology concerned or an officer authorized in this behalf by the Director of Mines & Geology and any other contravention, shall result in forfeiture of Security Deposit and levy of normal Seigniorage Fee along with "five times" penalty by the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology concerned or the Officer as authorized by the Director of Mines & Geology.] 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the opinion that, as per Rule 34(1) of the 9 Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, temporary permits cannot be issued when there are outstanding dues for the seigniorage fee. In the present case, since the petitioner has not submitted any documentary proof of payment of seigniorage fee via challans or demand drafts, the respondents have not issued temporary permits. However, if the petitioner has paid the due amount with regard to the seignorage fee, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. 11. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 28.02.2025 BMS