THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.93 of 2025

ORDER

Heard Sri A.Praneeth, learned counsel representing Sri P.Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the record.

2. The 1^st petitioner, represented by the 2^nd petitioner herein by the present Writ Petition, has assailed the action of the 4^th respondent- authority in issuing demand notice No.236/QL/2016, dt.14.10.2024, served on the petitioner, on 03.12.2024, directing them to pay normal seigniorage fee along with five times penalty in respect of quarry lease for building and road metal granted in the patta land situated in Sy.No.23 of Sirala Village, Bhainsa Mandal, Nirmal District, as being illegal and arbitrary, with a consequential direction to set aside the same.

3. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the respondents by the impugned proceeding had demanded normal seigniorage fee along with five times penalty under Rules 26(3)(2) and 26(2) of the Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’); and that the said authority lacks jurisdiction to levy penalty, as in terms of provisions of the Rules, penalty can only be levied by the Court, and as such, impugned proceeding issued is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Rules.

4. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.25894 of 2023 dt.14.11.2023, wherein this Court having regard to the provisions of Rule 26 of the Rules, following the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.8390 of 2018 dt.30.09.2022, had held that the Assistant Director of Mines or any other authority of the State cannot determine the culpability of the person said to be in violation of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’) or the Rules or levy a penalty and it is only a Court of competent jurisdiction which can go into these questions and levy penalties set out under Rule 26 of the Rules or any other provisions of the Act or the Rules.

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Mines appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 would contend that while the Rules under consideration by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh are not pari materia to Rules in force in the State of Telangana, and as such, the decision rendered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.8390 of 2023 relying which order in W.P.No.25894 of 2023 has been passed by this Court, the respondents-authorities have filed an application, vide I.A.No.1 of 2024, seeking review of the aforesaid order bringing out the difference between the Rules under consideration before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Rules as existing in the State of Telangana and as such, the petitioner cannot place reliance on the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh or the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.25814 of

2023.

6. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the validity of Rule 26 of the Rules has been confirmed by Full Bench of this Court in L.Venkateswara Rao v/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited1 and as such, the authorities under the Act and the Rules are competent to levy penalty.

7. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that inasmuch as remedy of appeal/revision is provided under the Rules, the petitioner ought to have availed the aforesaid remedy, instead of assailing the impugned demand notice by approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

9. Though the petitioner had placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.25814 of 2023, since, it is now informed to this Court that the respondents-authorities having sought for review of the aforesaid order, vide Review IA.No.1 of 2024, the petitioner cannot claim of the said order having attained finality, for them to place r