The court ruled that the petitioner must pursue available alternative remedies instead of invoking extraordinary jurisdiction, as the issuance of the demand notice was valid and did not lack inherent jurisdiction.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed for issue of Writ of Mandamus to declare the demand notice dated 20.12.2024 issued by the 4^th respondent, as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce appearing for respondents and with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner in brief, is that it was issued with a show cause notice dated 16.11.2024 by the 4^th respondent wherein it was alleged that on conducting of ETS survey by the Team of empanelled agency, the authorities have found the petitioner having extracted excess quantity and transported mineral to the tune of 87,875.24 metric tonnes; and that as the dispatch permits were obtained only for quantity of 60535 metric tonnes, the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Rule 26(1) and 26(3) of Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’) and is thus, liable to pay the normal seigniorage fee and 5 times penalty for the aforementioned excess quantity of mineral extracted and transported and called upon the petitioner to submit explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

4. Petitioner further contends that on being served with the aforesaid notice, it had submitted an explanation dated 28.11.2024 on 02.12.2024.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that by the aforesaid explanation submitted, it had brought to the notice of the authorities that out of the three quarry leases obtained by it, only one pit is currently operational and the crusher unit is located within the licenced leased area under valid Mineral Dealer licence issued.

6. It is also contended by the petitioner that by the aforesaid reply it had further submitted that Run-of-Mine material is transported solely within the designated lease area and that the Royalty payments and transit permits obtained were only for the quantity sold and the remaining stock of quantities could not be sold due to adverse market conditions impacting its operations, leading to suspension of crushing activities and power disconnection, including closing of the production activity from January due to power disconnection for non payment of electricity bills.

7. Petitioner further contends that despite the aforesaid explanation, the respondent authorities have issued the impugned proceeding dated 20.12.2024 raising demand towards normal seigniorage fee and five time penalty and other fee payable, in all aggregating to a sum of Rs.4,07,82,902/- claiming that the petitioner has resorted to illicit excavation and transportation of 87,875.24 metric tonnes of Stone and Metal more than the permitted quantity in violation of Rule 26(1) and 26(3)(i) of the Rules.

8. Petitioner further contends that since the petitioner did not transport the Stone and Metal from the leased area, the claim of the respondents of the petitioner contravening Rule 26 of the Rules is without any basis and, as such, the impugned demand raised is without jurisdiction and thus, the petitioner is entitled to assail the action of the respondent authority by filing the present Writ Petition.

9. It is further contended by the petitioner that though the show cause notice as issued alleges contravention of Rule 26(1) and 26(3)(i) of the Rules, the impugned proceeding, however, makes reference to Rule 34(1) of the Rules and thus, the impugned proceeding travels beyond the show cause notice and thus, is witho