Back
1997 Supreme(AP) 520
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.K.SOMASEKHARA
M/s.Siva Stone Crusher - Appellant
Versus
Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Guntur - Respondent
Decided On : 06-24-97
Headnote:
Stone Crusher - Electric Power - Petitioner is proprietor of Stone Crusher said firm which is a stone crushing unit in village since is stated to have consumed units of Electric power by crushing at rate of units per cubic meter worked out at cubic metrs out of which seigniorage is covered on cub mtrs leaving a balance of cub mtrs uncovered and therefore in impugned proceedings it was alleged that there is a liability on part of petitioner to pay which had not been discharged and therefore for default a penalty of five times of seigniorage was levied under Rule - Minor Mineral Concession Rules amounting - Petitioner was also called upon to pay amount within a week failing which orders would be passed to enforce order as per law - Held, In other words a person is entitled to be given an opportunity and to be treated with principles of natural justice - Having availed such an opportunity if he fails to comply with he is bound to consequences of suffering imposition of penalty - Such a person cannot complain later that he cannot be mulcted to pay penalty - It is apparent under circumstances and also in light of provisions stated above that it is mandatory for authority to comply with provisions inasmuch as to strengthen it by expending application of principles of natural justice without which order will be vitiated - Therefore question in each case would be whether such compliance has been adhered to by authority and such a non-compliance has been established against person who has to be put under sufferance for payment of penalty - Beyond that no other procedure is followed - Even such an admitted procedure has been attempted after passing impugned order - That will not cure defect in issuing impugned proceedings without complying with provisions and adopting principles of natural justice - Petition allowed.
( 1 ) THE impugned proceedings of the respondent namely, the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Vigilance and Enforcement Department, Guntur, in No. 21/vande/nr/96-97 dated 8-1-1997 is challenged in this writ petition as violative of the principles of natural justice and to pass appropriate orders.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Siva Stone Crusher. The said firm which is a stone crushing unit in Perecherla village of Guntur since 1994 is stated to have consumed 23160 units of Electric power by crushing at the rate of 4 units per cubic meter worked out at 5790 cubic metrs. out of which, the seigniorage is covered on 700 cub. mtrs. leaving a balance of 5090 cub. mtrs. uncovered and therefore in the impugned proceedings it was alleged that there is a liability on the part of the petitioner to pay Rs. 76,350. 00 which had not been discharged and therefore, for default, a penalty of five times of seigniorage was levied under Rule 26 (3) (1) of the A. P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short the Rules ) amounting to Rs. 4,58,100. 00. The petitioner was also called upon to pay the amount within a week failing which orders would be passed to enforce the order as per law.
( 3 ) SRI A. Rama Narayana, learned Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the impugned proceedings is not in accordance with Rule 26 of the Rules as no opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce any document, book, register or record as is referred to in sub-clause (d) of Rule 26 (3) (i) or no opportunity was given to show cause as to why such levy should not be placed as per the rule and therefore, the impugned order is not only illegal but also arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.
( 4 ) SMT. Sushanthi, learned Asst. Government Pleader for the respondent, in addition to the grounds raised in the counter, has contended that prima facie the petitioner had violated the obligations under Rule 26 to pay the necessary charges as a condition of the licence and had failed to produce the documentary proof in token of having paid the mineral revenue due to the Government and therefore the respondent had passed the impugned order within the implications of Rule 26 (3) (ii) of the Rules and therefore, the writ petition has no merit.
( 5 ) THE impugned proceedings intendedly imposed the penalty of Rs. 4,58,100. 00 which is five times the seigniorage of Rs. 77,350. 00 for the balance of 5090 cubic meters uncovered regarding the payment of the revenue due to the Government. Rule 26 has a title "penalty for unauthorised quarrying". In whatever manner the seigniorage is fixed and computed for totalling up to 5 times as per the rule, patently it is the penalty which the rule contemplates. The impugned penalty has been regulated under the rule, which is better to be reproduced for proper appreciation. "rule 26 : PENALTY FOR UNAUTHORISED QUARRYING : (1) If any person carried on quarrying operations or transports minor minerals in contravention of these rules, he shall be liable to pay as penalty such enhanced seigniorage fee together with assessments as may be imposed by an Officer nominated by the Director of Mines and Geology. (2) Whenever any person raises or transports minor minerals without any lawful authority, such minerals may be seized by an Officer nominated by the Director of Mines and Geology in this behalf in addition to the imposition of penalty under sub-rule (1 ). Provided that in no case, the penalty shall exceed ten times the normal seigniorage fee and the lease or permit already granted may, at the discretion of the Deputy Director, be liable to be terminated or cancelled. (3) (i) For the purpose of ascertaining the position of payment of Mineral Revenue due to the Government or for any other purpose under these rules, the person authorised under sub-rule (2) may : (a) enter and inspect any premises; (b) survey and take measurements; (c) weigh, measure or take measuremen
