Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
M/s. G.I. Estates rep. by its Proprietrix R. Kalpana Kiran – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 40621 of 2015
Decided On : 03-06-2016
Civil Law – Dismissal of revision – Demand Notice – Lease Deed – Lease was originally granted to M/s. Amman Granites but upon its request it was transferred to petitioner. A fresh lease deed was then executed – This transferred lease is valid for the unexpired period of initial lease,– While so Show-cause Notice was issued to petitioner by Assistant Director of Mines and Geology adverting to inspection said to have been made of the leased area and calling upon petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against it for collection of normal seignior age fee along with ten times penalty for having excavated and transported 314.24 cubic meters of black granite from outside leased area – Petitioner submitted its reply stating that quarrying was being done systematically duly obtaining dispatch permits from time to time and that, as per field conditions, working pits were uneven in leased area field conditions, working pits were uneven in leased area which was covered with weathered boulders – Petitioner claimed that its quarry manager and labour had measured and marked the lease boundaries as per the approved mining plan but they were lost and the technical staff had excavated outside the leased area without having any intention to do so – Held, it would have been a different situation had the revisionary authority indicated the reasons for its decision in the ‘Note File’ and merely required the subordinates to put it in proper form – Clear from the original record of the three revisions placed before this Court – It is therefore demonstrated in no uncertain terms that statutory revisions under Rule 35-A of the Rules of 1966 are being whimsically disposed of by the revisionary authority without visible application of mind and without recording reasons – Revisionary authority seems to think that discretion vested in it under the statutory provision gives it infinite autonomy to decide the quantum of the penalty to be levied without any responsibility to disclose reasons there for – This is indeed a deplorable situation which requires to be remedied immediately – It is the permanent executive which would have to advise and steer the political executive, the revisionary authority, in right direction but it is manifest that there is patent failure in this regard – These observations would apply not only to the revisionary authority under the Rules of 1966 but to all other statutory authorities discharging quasi-judicial functions who need to be sensitized of their role and responsibility in the scheme of statutory adjudication – Petition is allowed
The petitioner assails the dismissal of its revision under Memo dated 02.12.2015, whereby the Government of Andhra Pradesh confirmed the Demand Notice dated 06.07.2015 issued by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, calling upon it to pay Rs.5,19,520/- towards seignior age fee and Rs.51,95,200/- towards penalty, aggregating to Rs.57,14,720/-.
The petitioner was granted, by way of transfer, an existing quarry lease for black granite over an extent of 1,000 hectares in Sy.No.160/1 of Gollapalem Village, Phirangipuram Mandal, Guntur District, under proceedings dated 12.06.2008 of the Director of Mines and Geology, Andhra Pradesh. This lease was originally granted to M/s. Amman Granites but upon its request it was transferred to the petitioner. A fresh lease deed was then executed on 29.07.2008. This transferred lease is valid for the unexpired period of the initial lease, i.e., up to 14.05.2024.
While so, Show-cause Notice dated 15.06.2015 was issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, adverting to the inspection said to have been made of the leased area on 11.11.2014 and calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against it for collection of normal seignior age fee along with ten times penalty for having excavated and transported 314.24 cubic meters of black granite from outside the leased area. The petitioner submitted its reply dated 27.06.2015 stating that quarrying was being done systematically duly obtaining dispatch permits from time to time and that, as per the field conditions, the working pits were uneven in the leased area the field conditions, the working pits were uneven in the leased area which was covered with weathered boulders. The petitioner claimed that its quarry manager and labour had measured and marked the lease boundaries as per the approved mining plan but they were lost and the technical staff had excavated outside the leased area without having any intention to do so. The petitioner therefore requested dropping of further action stating that it was ready to pay the normal seignior age fee. Consequent to this, the subject demand notice was issued holding the petitioner’s reply unsatisfactory and untenable under the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for brevity, the Rules of 1966). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision under Rule 35-A of the Rules of 1966. By the impugned Memo dated 02.12.2015, the revision was dismissed.
Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner virtually conceded in its reply that quarrying operations were carried on by it beyond the leased area, the issue before this Court is whether exercise of revisionary power by the Government of Andhra Pradesh warrants interference on any ground?
In the writ affidavit, the petitioner raised the plea that the finding that it had excavated 314.24 cubic meters of black granite outside the leased area was not correct and was not borne out by the record. Notably, this aspect was not raised in the revision. Another plea raised by the petitioner was that the revisionary authority was not evenhanded in dealing with revisions filed before it. Reference was made to disposal of another revision by Memo dated 17.08.2015, whereby a five times penalty was reduced to a one time penalty, and it was contended that there was no rationale in applying different standards to similarly situated persons. The petitioner also placed on record Memos dated 22.01.2015 and 02.06.2015, whereby the revisionary authority had disposed of other revisions. The contention of the petitioner is that perusal of these orders would demonstrate the subjective and capricious nature of the decisions taken by the revisionary authority.
In his counter-affidavit, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, stated that he was authorized to spea
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
