This batch of writ petitions is being disposed of by a common order since substantial question involved in all these writ petitions being the same. In certain of these writ petitions, there are interim orders and in certain of these writ, petitions, no interim orders are made. Learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce had opposed the passing of an interim order on the ground that there is a change of situation by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.217, dated 29-09-2004.

2. The learned Counsel representing the petitioners would submit that in the nature of the reliefs prayed for, it would not alter the situation in any way and even otherwise subsequent to the said G.O. in certain writ petitions interim orders have been made. Inasmuch as, counter-affidavits are filed, this Court thought it fit to dispose of all these matters finally.

3. Submissions at length were made by Smt. Shoba, learned Counsel representing the petitioners, Sri Panduranga Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce and Sri Gourishankar Sanghi, Standing Counsel for Railways.

4. Learned Counsel representing the petitioners had taken this Court through the pleadings of the parties and would contend that certain arithmetical calculations and the details specified in the expert committee report, the petitioners are not aware of and they were never put on notice. Learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Sections 9, 13 and 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957, hereinafter in short referred to as Act for the purpose of convenience. Learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 64 (b) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and also to Schedules I and II under Rule 10 as substituted by G.0.Ms.No.217, I&C (M-1) Department, dated 29-09-2004 of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 in short hereinafter referred to as Rules for the purpose of convenience, and would maintain that absolutely the petitioners have no objection if the respondents follow Rule 10 of the Rules specified supra read along with Schedules I and II. Certain submissions were made by the learned Counsel in relation to the Technical Study Report. The Counsel also had further explained that even in relation to the Technical Study Report none of the petitioners were put on notice. Learned Counsel would also had drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 34 of the Rules and also placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate her contentions. Learned Counsel also contended that if the unit is elsewhere, the Government had no right to make any claim at all.

5. Per contra Sri Panduranga Reddy, learned Counsel representing the respondents had distinguished the decisions and would maintain that the issue of dispatch permits and the variations being a new issue, it cannot be said that any of the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners would be applicable to the facts of these cases. Learned Counsel had explained the Technical Study Report on Volumetric and Tonnage Variation due to crushing of stones and boulders by department of Mines and Geology, Government of A.P., Hyderabad, several mathematical and arithmetical calculations and how the leaseholders are making attempts to evade the payments due to the Government. Learned Counsel also had well explained Rule 10 of the Rules and Scheduled I and II there under as amended and Rules 26 and 28 of the Rules as well and would conclude that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

6. Sri Gourishankar Sanghi, learned Counsel representing the Railways in one of the matters had clarified the position by explaining the stand of the railways in this regard.

Heard the Counsel.

W.P.No.490 of 2000

7. Progressive Constructions Company, the writ petitioner, filed this writ petition praying for a Mandamus directing the respondents to assess the quantities of ballast by applying conversion factor which is followed by other railways including the South Eastern Railw