O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the legal validity of the final orders passed vide Memo No. 15873/M.II (1)/2013-3, Industries & Commerce (Mines-II) Department, dated 19.02.2014 by the 1st respondent – State in the statutory Revision Application dated 02.08.2013 preferred by the petitioner company challenging the original demand notice dated 27.06.2013 of the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder apart from being violative of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Petition No. 3813 of 2012 and batch and G.O.Ms.No.139, Industries and Commerce (M-1)

Department dated 12.11.2013.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and involved in the business of constructing multi-storeyed flats and independent houses and selling the same to various customers. In recent times, petitioner Company has built independent group houses in Survey Nos. 114 (P), 115(P), 116(P) etc., of Hyderguda Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In the process of implementation of the above said project, petitioner has consumed minerals Road Metal, Sand and Bricks. While so, to the utter shock and surprise, petitioner was put on notice dated 16.12.2011 by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Hyderabad City-II to furnish certain information with regard to consumption of various minerals and materials in implementation of the above said project. In response, vide letter dated 29.02.2012, petitioner submitted the required information to the O/o Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Hyderabad City-II. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent – Assistant Director of Mines and Geology issued show cause notice, dated 13.12.2012 as to why action should not be taken for realisation of normal seigniorage fee in addition to penalty amounting to Rs.2,33,27,550/- under Rules 26(2) and 26(3)(ii) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 as the petitioner failed to produce the required documentary evidence for having paid the seigniorage fee to the State of A.P. with regard to the quantities of minor minerals excavated, transported, consumed and procured in the construction work in the subject area. Petitioner company in response to the above said show cause notice, submitted a detailed reply dated 07.03.2013 duly enclosing the details of various transit permits issued by its suppliers with regard to consumption of stone and metal as well as artificial sand supplied by M/s Robo Silicon (P) Limited. It is stated that unfortunately, the 3rd respondent instead of closing the case, issued original demand notice dated 27.06.2013 for payment of Rs.2,27,87,550/- towards normal seigniorage fee plus ten times penalty. Challenging the same as illegal and arbitrary, petitioner preferred statutory Revision Application dated 02.08.2013 under Rule 35/35-A of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 before the 1st respondent which waived off a part of the penalty and further directed petitioner to pay normal seigniorage fee plus one time penalty.

It is stated that thereafter, petitioner immediately complied with part of the above said order by paying the seigniorage fee plus one time penalty in so far as Metal, Sand and Bricks are concerned vide Challan Nos. 145462 and 144881 dated 19.03.2014 amounting to Rs.5,45,830/- and Rs.5,45,830/- respectively. In so far as mineral - Earth is concerned, petitioner has not purchased any Earth from outside nor consumed it in the implementation of its project except removing the locally-available material for the purpose of levelling the land and laying internal roads. Therefore, as of now, he is challenging levy of normal seigniorage fee plus one time penalty on mineral Earth as the said levy is contrary to the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3813 of 2012 and batch dated 22.02.2