Point of law: The Licensee who contravenes the provisions of these rules deals with storing, stocking and transportation of minerals, either in raw form and / or subjected the mineral/s to beneficiation, separation, crushing, pulverization, calcination and cutting & polishing activities, as the case may be, shall be penalized with a penalty as per the provisions laid down under rule 26(3)(ii) of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 in case of Minor Minerals and in case of Major Minerals, action shall be taken in accordance with the provisions laid down under Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 for the storage of quantity of minerals not covered with payment of Royalty/Seigniorage fee, as assessed by the Authorized Officer.

Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh Mines and Mineral Concessional Rules – Rules 26, 34, 3, 6, 7, 8 – Demand Notice – License – Contention of counsel appearing for the petitioners is that once the licensee has paid the mineral revenue for the stocks available at stockyard, in fact paid in excess of quantity, the 4th respondent cannot direct the petitioners to pay again the mineral revenue for the differential quantity with a penalty of five times, and the power to direct for payment of mineral revenue would arise only in respect of quantities for which, no mineral revenue is paid. – Hence, the 4th respondent has no power to issue demand notice, for payment of royalty once again with the penalty.
Finding of court: It is not in dispute that even though the petitioners have paid the royalties, it is an admitted fact that without obtaining e-Transit passes, the petitioners have transported the mineral from the licensed premises, hence, they have violated the conditions of the license, they are liable for penalization as per 26(3) (ii) of APMMC Rules, 1966. – it is made clear that the penalty imposed under Rule 8 of APMD Rules 2017 can be invoked as per 26(3)(ii) of APMMC Rules, 1966 only for the storage of quantities of minerals not covered the payment of royalty /senoriage fee, and also there is a clear embargo stipulated in para 6 of From L, once the differential quantity is less than 10% no penalty is imposed as per Section 34(1) of the said Rules. – It is not in dispute that in the identical matters, the authorities have considered and dropped the proceedings, where the differential quantities is less than 10% as per From L, as above said. – Court is of the considered opinion that invoking of Rule 8 (i) (iv) of APMD Rules, 2017 are not applicable to the instant cases, accordingly all the impugned Demand Notices, are hereby set aside and all these writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.
Result: Writ Petition Disposed of

ORDER :

All these batch of the writ petitions, involving common issue, filed challenging the respective demand notices issued by the 4th respondent, who is the Additional Director of Mines and Geology, Nellore District, hence, they are being heard together and disposed of by this Common Order.

W.P. No.15798 of 2020

2. This writ petition is filed assailing the order of the 4th respondent passed in Demand Notice No.1334/MDL/2020-25 dated 20.08.2020 and to quash the same.

W.P. No.19526 of 2020

3. This writ petition is filed assailing the order of the 4th respondent passed in Demand Notice No.1334/MDL/2020-84 dated 20.08.2020 and to quash the same.

W.P. No.18434 of 2020

4. This writ petition is filed assailing the order of the 4th respondent passed in Demand Notice No.1334/MDL/2020-62 dated 20.08.2020 and to quash the same.

W.P. No.19532 of 2020

5. This writ petition is filed assailing the order of the 4th respondent passed in Demand Notice No.1334/MDL/2020-67 dated 20.08.2020 and to quash the same.

W.P. No.19529 of 2020

6. This writ petition is filed assailing the order of the 4th respondent passed in Demand Notice No.1334/MDL/2020-26 dated 20.08.2020 and to quash the same.

W.P. No.20599 of 2020

7. This writ petition is filed assailing the order of the 4th respondent passed in Demand Notice No.1334/MDL/2020-44 dated 18.08.2020 and to quash the same.

W.P. No.22642 of 2020

8. This writ petition is filed assailing the order of the 4th respondent passed in Demand Notice No.1334/MDL/2020-101 dated 20.08.2020 and to set aside the same.

W.P. No.19327 of 2020

9. This writ petition is filed assailing the order of the 4th respondent passed in Demand Notice No.1334/MDL/2020-8 dated 20.08.2020 and to set aside the same.

W.P. No.19509 of 2020

10. This writ petition is filed assailing the order of the 4th respondent passed in Demand Notice No.1334/MDL/2020-82 dated 20.08.2020 and to set aside the same.

W.P. No.22662 of 2020

11. This writ petition is filed assailing the order of the 4th respondent passed in Demand Notice No.1334/MDL/2020-46 dated 18.08.2020 and to set aside the same.

12. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy and Ms. G.N.Uma Rani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents.

13. As per the license granted by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, all the petitioners are doing business for processing, selling, trading of silica sand in their respective premises. Subsequent to the grant of license, the petitioners are doing business without contravening any of the conditions of license. Surprisingly, the 4th respondent herein has issued notices to the petitioners, on the following ground:

“In this connection, you are hereby requested to produce the documentary evidence for the above stocks available at the unit within 10days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which it will be constructed that no evidence is available within the firm and further action will be initiated as per rules in force.

Please acknowledge receipt of the Notice.”

14. Replying to the said notices, all the petitioners have submitted detailed explanations, stating that the silica sand was produced/purchased by the petitioner by paying royalty and obtaining royalty paid transit bills/pass and is being accounted against out MDL Account on online which is covered under royalty and to substance the stock of silica sand, the online screen shots was enclosed, as such the quantity does not require any further evidence of having paid royalty and the stock of silica sand available at MDL site is stated in their respective notices. But the royalty paid quantity is more than the estimated quantity stock of silica sand at licensed premises. The stock of raw silica sand is in irregular shaped heaps which cannot be assessed within a fixed formula and any assessment made will give approximate figure and which has to be rectified by allowing + or – 10% margin on the estimated quantity as per rules. Otherwis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(AP) 122

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATID.RAMESH, J.Sri Rahul Minerals - Appellant VersusState of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent Writ Petition Nos.15798, 18434, 19532, 19526, 19529, 20599, 22642, 19327, 19509, 22662 of 2020Decided On : 02-03-2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
D.RAMESH, J.
Sri Rahul Minerals - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.15798, 18434, 19532, 19526, 19529, 20599, 22642, 19327, 19509, 22662 of 2020
Decided On : 02-03-2021