HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

ORDER

Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, 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.579/Q1/2007, dated 27.08.2024 including the show-cause notice No.5067/Q1/2009, dated 29.06.2024 as illegal.

3. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the 4th respondent has issued show-cause notice dated 25.06.2024 without considering Rule 34(1) 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 revised show-cause notice dated 29.06.2024. He has also issued demand notice on 27.08.2024 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.105,27,12,024/- towards Normal Seigniorage Fee, permit fee along with five times penalty, DMFT, SMET and IT for the misused quantity under Rule 34(1) of TSMMC Rules, 1966. 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 notices are defective, contrary to Rule 34(1) 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 25.06.2024 and revised show-cause notice dated 29.06.2024 properly, in terms of Rule 34(1) 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 34(1) 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 G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner did not submit explanation to the revised show-cause notice dated 29.06.2024 raising the aforesaid aspects. According to him, the said revised show-cause notice dated 29.06.2024 is defective and it was not served on the petitioner. 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 25.06.2024 and revised show-cause notice dated 29.06.2024 are proper and the same are in terms of Rule 34(1) of TSMMC Rules, 1966. Despite receipt of show-cause dated 25.06.2024 and revised show-cause notice 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 25.06.2024 and revised show-cause notice dated 29.06.2024 were 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 25.06.2024 and revised 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 4th respondent including the fact that the details mentioned in the tabular form of revised 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 notices dated 25.06.2024 and 29.06.2024 and acknowledgments of show-cause notices