APHC010303342017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3459]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 33377/2017 Between:

1. M /S. K.P.R. CONSTRUCTIONS, #G-6, ARUNODAYA APARTMENTS,, STREET NO. 1, TARNAKA, SECUNDERABAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. K. PUNNA RAO.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS NEW DELHI REP, BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. T HE RAILWAY BOARD NEW DELHI REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, -

3. T HE CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTIONI SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD.

4. T HE DY CHIEF PROJECT MANAGER WORLD CLASS STATION PROJECT, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD.

5. T HE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CONSTRUCTION SOUTH, CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue writ order or direction especially one in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in deducting @ 30% towards District Mineral Foundation Fees and 2% State Mineral Exploration Trust, in total deducting 32% on the seigniorage charges from the running bills payable to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Article 1(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently' direct the respondents not to deduct 30% towards District Mineral Foundation Fees, and 2% State Mineral ExploratiOn Trust, in total deducting 32% on the seigniorage charges from the petitioner or in the alternative it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to reimburse the amount deducted towards Mineral Development Fund at 30% of the seigniorage charges and also 2% of the seigniorage charges towards State Mineral Exploration Trust IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 41527 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to deduct 30% towards District Mineral Foundation Fees and 2% State Mineral Exploration Trust, in total 32% on the seigniorage charges from the petitioner pending disposal of the main writ petition IA NO: 4 OF 2017(WPMP 189940 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ASHOK GOUD PONNAM Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. P BHASKAR

2. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER:

Though the matter was adjourned on 15.10.2025, 05.11.2025, 12.11.2025, there was no representation for the petitioner. Hence, the matter was listed on 10.12.2025. Even on that day there was no representation for the petitioner. Therefore, the matter is listed today under the under the caption “for dismissal”.

Today when the matter is called, there is no representation for the petitioner. It appears that the learned counsel for the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the case.

Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed as non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.

Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 17.12.2025 KAS

240 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 33377/2017 Date: 17.12.2025 KAS