Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20586 (AP)

M/s. Hindustan Engineers Syndicate Engineers & v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

WP/25386/2010 · 2026-03-04

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010224462010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 25386 OF 2010 Between: 1. M/s. Hindustan Engineers Syndicate Engineers &, Contractors, represented by its General Manager Danireddy Chandrasekhar Reddy S/o.Lakshmireddy Plot No.39, B.N. Reddy Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Director of Mines and Geology BRKR Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its, Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning (Works & Project) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 4. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its, Principal Secretary, Roads and Buildings Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Road and Buildings Department, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District. 6. The Executive Engineer Road and Buildings Department, Proddatur Division, Y.S.R. District. 7. The Assistant Pay Accounts Officer Works Projects, NGO's Colony, Near Venkateswara Temple, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing instructions to effect recover the seigniorage charges on sand with one time penalty from the bills of the petitioner pertaining to the agreement No. 39/2008-09 dated 13.5.2008 for the works executed by the petitioner where permits for sand issued by the Mines Department are not produced, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust apart from violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents not to recover seignoriage charges with penalty from the bills of the petitioner and also direct the respondents to refund the amounts already deducted towards seigniorage charges with one time penalty from the bills of the petitioner and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2010(WPMP 32429 OF 2010 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents not to recover seignoriage charges with penalty from the bills of the petitioner pertaining to Agreement No.39/2008-2009 dated 13.5.2008 pending disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following order: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.25386 OF 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “……..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing instructions to effect recover the seigniorage charges on sand with one time penalty from the bills of the petitioner pertaining to the agreement No. 39/2008-09 dated 13.5.2008 for the works executed by the petitioner where permits for sand issued by the Mines Department are not produced, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust apart from violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents not to recover seignoriage charges with penalty from the bills of the petitioner and also direct the respondents to refund the amounts already deducted towards seigniorage charges with one time penalty from the bills of the petitioner and to pass…….” 2. Heard Sri Y.Nagender, advocate representing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Y.Nagender. as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology jointly submitted that the identical question involved in the lis already adjudicated by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad on 29.07.2015 itself in W.P.No.1426 of 2012 and batch. The learned AGP for Mines & Geology further states that above batch of cases attained finality too. 4. At this juncture, it is apt to note dictum followed in the above batch cases is that, “a Contractor or the Government Department, whose works are executed by the Contractor, cannot be fastened with the duty to verify whether permits for the sale of sand were obtained by the lessees from the Mines Department and that, therefore, if there is proof that the seignorage charges were collected by the agency, with whom the contractor is executing the work, by way of deduction from his bills and such proof is filed before the Assistant Director of Miens & Geology concerned, no penalty shall be levied.” 5. Keeping in view the above submissions coupled with the fact that the identical question dealt by the common high Court, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition in similar lines. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, in the following manner: a) If the petitioner filed proof to the effect that seignorage charges were deducted from their bills by the Departments concerned, under whom they have executed the contract works, no penalty shall be levied as per G.O.Ms.No.84 Industries &Commerce (MI) Department, dated 10.04.2007; and b) If the petitioner failed to produce such proof, the respondents are entitled to recover seignorage charges along with one time penalty as envisaged in the aforesaid G.O. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:05.03.2026 Rns THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.25386 of 2010 Date:05.03.2026 Rns