APHC010086632016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3310]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 13624/2016 Between:

C. Keerthi, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. A CHANDRA SHAKER Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP)

The Court made the following Order:

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“…..to issue an appropriate Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology – Respondent No.3, in issuing Demand notice No.21(A)/V&E/Vg- Gooty/2012 dt.05-10-2012 and the orders of the 1^st respondent vide Memo No.11429/M.I(1)/2015-5 Dt.10-03- 2016 by directing the petitioner to pay normal seigniorage fee along with Two times penalty as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unconstitutional, in violation of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act 1957 and A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966….”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted quarry lease by Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Tadipatri for Road Metal and building Stone over an extent of 1.700 Hectares in Survey No.107/4 of Chakkrayapeta Village, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapuramu district, for a period of ten years commencing from 13.02.2008 to 12.02.2018 vide license No.3651/Q2/2007, dated 13.02.2008. While so, on 22.12.2011, the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Anantapur Unit along with Mines and Geology Officials and Mandal Revenue Officials visited quarry premises and calculated total quantity to have been quarried as 9,438 Cubic meters. Pursuant to the same, the 2^nd respondent issued demand notice vide No.21(A)V&E/Vg-Gooty/2012, dated 05.10.2012 observing that the petitioner paid royalty for 2,134 Cubic metres and came to a conclusion that the evaded quantity measured as 7,304 Cubic metres and directed the petitioner to pay the normal seigniorage fee along with five times penalty within fifteen days from the date of receipt of demand notice; failing which, action will be initiated under provisions of APMMC Rules, 1966. Questioning the same, the petitioner preferred revision before the 1^st respondent-Government on 21.02.2013 by paying the normal Seigniorage fee for 7,304 Cubic meters at the rate of Rs.50/- per Cubic metre., and a total of Rs.3,65,200/-. Thereafter, the petitioner received Memo No.2762/M.II(1)/2013-1, dated 25.02.2013, wherein the Director of Mines and Geology was requested to send the brief history and facts of the case for disposal of revision petition. Surprisingly, the petitioner received copy of disposal of Revision Petition under Rule 35-A of APMMC Rules, 1966 vide Memo No.2762/M.I(1)/2013-2, dated 07.05.2015 and the Revisional Authority has partly convinced with the contentions of revision petitioner and decided to award two times penalty and directed to pay two times penalty together with normal seigniorage fee, if normal seigniorage fee not paid earlier, within a period of thirty days from the date of issue of order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18780 of 2015 before this Court and the same was allowed vide order dated 25.06.2015 setting aside the Memo of the 1^st respondent and directed the 1^st respondent to afford personal hearing to the petitioner and dispose the matter as per law. Inspite of orders of this Court, the 1^st respondent without giving any opportunity, simply incorporating the reference of the writ in the order and extracting the contents of the memo and the petition, mechanically passed the impugned order vide memo No.11429/M.I(1)2015-5, dated 10.03.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Though the writ petition is filed in the year 2016, the respondents have not filed any counter till dat