Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, N.V.RAMANA
Progressive Construction Ltd., Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P., Department of Industries and Commerce - Respondent
Decided On : 01-09-03
Constitution of India – Articles 14, 19, 226 – Demand Notice – Writ of Certiorari – Petitioner-company invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent-Government in Memo and the consequent demand notice of the second respondent-Director of Mines and geology and the proceedings of the third respondent-Deputy Director of Mines and geology in Lr. and quash the same – Proceedings, according to the petitioner company, are illegal, arbitrary and violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India – Petitioners-company also prays for a consequential direction directing the first respondent-Government to refund a sum of rs. 30,33,450/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 30-11-2000 till the date of payment – Held, Court is constrained to observe that none of the parties before us have given full and required particulars in any of the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions – Affidavits are, no doubt, lengthy – Nor the counter affidavits filed in the matter provide the required details – Deteriorating standards in the matter of presentation of pleadings are writ large in this group of cases – Innumerable writ petitions were filed one after the other by the parties on one or other pretext – They have succeeded in their attempts in prolonging the litigation. Records made available reflect the utter chaos, confusion and recklessness on the part of all the concerned – No doubt, inconsistent demands were made by the respondents levying and charging the seigniorage fee payable by the petitioners – They were all motivated resulting in utter confusion and chaos for the obvious reasons already noticed – Duty to analyse and cull out the relevant facts and the sequence of events had fallen on us – Court have to undergo the order of looking into each and every paper in the record not so well maintained – Like other sub-contractors-petitioners, there is no evidence of thepetitioner-company ever obtaining any permission/lease to quarry any mineral – Petitioner-company without obtaining the necessary licences and permits transported the material illegally and consumed the same in the process of filling work – Court have no reason to disbelieve the averments made in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner-company has obtained the filling material from the government lands and only a some portion i. e. 40,464 cubic meters from the private lands – Court do not find any reason or ground to take a different view other than the one taken by us is W. P. referred to hereinabove – Court reach the same conclusions as the one arrived at by court in the above writ petitions – Writ Petition Dismissed
( 1 ) THESE three writ petitions may be disposed of by a common order, since the same are directed against the common order dated 4-2-2002 passed by the Government in exercise of its revisional power under rule 35-A of the Andhra Pradesh Minor mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and consequential demand notice dated 20-2-2002 issued by the Director of Mines and Geology. W. P. No. 6916 of 2002:
( 2 ) THE petitioner-company invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent-Government in Memo No. 8817/m. II. (l)/2001-6, dated 4-2-2002 and the consequent demand notice no. 4823/mr2/99-3, dated 20-2-2002 of the second respondent-Director of Mines and geology and the proceedings of the third respondent-Deputy Director of Mines and geology in Lr. No. 2946/q2/2001-3, dated 28-3-2002 and quash the same. The proceedings, according to the petitioner company, are illegal, arbitrary and violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners-company also prays for a consequential direction directing the first respondent-Government to refund a sum of rs. 30,33,450/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 30-11-2000 till the date of payment.
( 3 ) THE impugned orders are challenged on various grounds.
( 4 ) BEFORE adverting to the question as to whether the petitioner-company is entitled for any relief as such, it may be appropriate to notice the relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition: the petitioner-company is engaged in the business of construction, engineering and civil works. During the course of its business activities, the petitioner-company had participated in the tenders invited by the Bharat heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) for the purpose of executing their part of the contract with the N. T. P. C. for levelling and grading (Part of Group I tender No. 808) of 2 x 500 MW simhadri Thermal Power Project, parawada, Visakhaptanam. The BHEL awarded a contract dated 4-1-1999 to the petitioner-company for execution of part of the said work with an estimated value of Rs. 7,87,33,290/ -.
( 5 ) IT is the case of the petitioner-company that the material required for the purpose of execution of the said contract in terms of the specifications prescribed under the contract shall be earth, morrum, gravel, a mixture of these or any other material approved by the bhel engineers. The material is required to be free from lumps and clouds, boulders or rock pieces, roots and vegetation, harmful salts and chemicals, organic materials, loose silts, fine sands and expansive clays in order to provide stable embankment.
( 6 ) IT is claimed that the petitioner-company had obtained rights for excavation of good earth from the ryots of patta lands in the vicinity as well as from the gravel quarry leaseholders. The petitioner-company had been supplying the material from the source in which they obtained rights for excavation of material. It is submitted that the petitioner-company altogether supplied a total quantity of 14,68,089 cubic meters of material under the contract, but the BHEL had computed as 13,61,894. 25 cubic meters only. According to the petitioner-company, out of the said quantity, it had supplied a quantity of 1,66,031 cubic meters of gravel from the source of gravel quarry leases issued by the department, which was treated as gravel under the licence itself, for which the seigniorage fees was paid and admittedly transit bills were also issued at the relevant time.
( 7 ) THE Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam by his notice dated 1-4-2000 required the BHEL to show cause as to why action should not be initiated to realise a sum of rs. 46,02,77,940-00 towards seigniorage fee at the rate of Rs. 10/- per M3 of filling material which includes five times penalty over and a
gpt-4
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
