HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

ORDER

Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P.Giri Kirshna, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the demand notice No.4661/Q1/2007, dated 27.08.2024 including the show-cause notice No.4661/Q1/2007, dated

29.06.2024 as illegal.

3. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the 4th respondent has issued show-cause notice dated 29.06.2024 without considering Rule 26(3)(ii) of the Telangana State Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘TSMMC Rules, 1966). The said show-cause notice is defective.

Without considering the same, the 4^th respondent has issued demand notice on 27.08.2024 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.7,60,01,016/- towards Normal Seigniorage Fee along with 5 times penalty, permit fee, DMFT, SMET and IT for the misused quantity under Rule 26(3)(ii) of TSMMC Rules, 1966. The same are in violation of the said rule. Therefore, though there is an alternate remedy, the present writ petition is maintainable. According to learned Senior Counsel, the impugned demand notice and show-cause notice are defective, contrary to Rule 26(3)(ii) of TSMMC Rules, 1966, and illegal.

4. Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, would contend that the 4th respondent has issued show-cause notice dated 29.06.2024 properly, in terms of Rule 26(3)(ii) of TSMMC Rules, 1966. Even the demand notice dated 27.08.2024 is also proper. There is no defect or error and non-consideration of Rule 26(3)(ii) of TSMMC Rules, 1966 as contended by the petitioner.

He would further contend that petitioner has to avail alternate remedy i.e. filing of application under Rule 35 of TSMMC Rules, 1966 or Revision under Rule 35A of TSMMC Rules, 1966. With the said submission, he sought to dismiss the present writ petition.

5. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner did not submit explanation to the show-cause notice dated 29.06.2024 raising the aforesaid aspects. According to him, the show-cause notice dated 29.06.2024 is defective. Therefore, the present writ petition is maintainable.

6. As discussed supra, according to learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, the show- cause notice dated 29.06.2024 is proper and the same is in terms of Rule 26(3)(ii) of TSMMC Rules, 1966. Despite receipt of show-cause dated 29.06.2024, petitioner did not submit explanation.

7. Referring to demand notice dated 27.08.2024, learned Senior Counsel would further contend that show- cause notice dated 29.06.2024 was served on the petitioner on 08.07.2024. Thus, the petitioner was not in a position to submit explanation to the same.

8. The aforesaid facts would reveal that the petitioner was served with show-cause notice dated 29.06.2024 only on 08.07.2024 and the petitioner did not submit any explanation. Therefore, the petitioner was not in a position to put-forth the aforesaid submissions before the 4^th respondent including the fact that the details mentioned in the tabular form of show-cause notice, dated 29.06.2024 are factually incorrect. Therefore, though there is an alternate remedy available in terms of Rule 35 of TSMMC Rules, 1966 and Revision in terms of Rule 35(A) of TSMMC Rules, 1966, the present writ petition is maintainable. As rightly contended by learned Senior Counsel in the demand notice dated 27.08.2024 there is reference to show-cause notice dated 25.06.2024 and acknowledgment of show-cause notice dated 08.07.2024. There is no mention about receipt of the said show-cause notice by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it has received show-cause notice dated 29.06.2024 and show-cause notice dated 25.06.2024 was not served on it.

9. As discussed supra, vide impugned demand notice dated 27.08.2024, respondent No.4 demanded an