IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.20566 of 2014 Date: 10.12.2025 Between:

M/s CITO AUCTUS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., Rep. by its Director Sri Akhilesh Reddy.

…Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, T.S.

Secretariat, Hyderabad & three others.

…Respondents

ORDER

Heard Sri A.Kranti Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.4.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent in issuing Lr.No-612-3/VG-I/2013, Dt-13-06-2014 without considering its reply Dt-28-08-2013 as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14 and 21 of The Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case…”

3. Brief facts stated in this writ petition are that the petitioner is a construction company carrying out business of construction and claims to have reputation in its field. It is submitted that the petitioner has received a show-cause notice dated 28-05-2012 from the office of respondent No.2 seeking an explanation as to why action should not be taken for realization of normal seigniorage fee in addition to penalty of Rs.29,19,130/- stating that the petitioner company has procured metal, sand and bricks and consumed in the subject area for the construction of a total plinth area of 1,64,592 square feets and that the details of the same were not provided to the office of respondent No.2 in spite of providing an opportunity.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had submitted his reply to the above show cause notice vide letter dated 01-07-2013, which was received by office of respondent No.2 on 05-08-2013 and in the said reply, petitioner had stated the details pertaining to the procurement of metal, sand and bricks consumed for the purpose of alleged construction. While denying the allegations, the petitioner further submitted that respondent No.2 has never visited the site about enquiring the usage of the material for the said construction and requested respondent No.2 to drop all further proceedings. Petitioner further submits in spite of his explanations, respondent No.2 has raised a demand notice dated 02.08.2013 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.29,19,130/-. The petitioner aggrieved by the said notice vide letter dated 28.08.2013 requested respondent No.2 to consider the details already submitted vide reply to the show cause notice dated 28.05.2012. However, respondent No.2 has addressed the letter to respondent No.4 to take steps to recover the mineral revenue dues by invoking the provisions of A.P.Revenue Act, 1864. Petitioner filed the writ petition No.19291 of 2014, however, the said writ petition was dismissed was withdrawn with a liberty to file fresh petition vide order dated 18.07.2014 as the petitioner could not file the relevant documents in the said writ petition. Thereby, the petitioner filed present writ petition with all the relevant documents questioning the letter dated 13.06.2014.

5. This Court, on 08.12.2025, as observed as follows:-

“Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines &

Geology submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 35-A of the Telangana State Minor Mineral Concession (for short “TSMMC”) Rules, 1966.

No counter filed though this Court granted an interim order on 30.07.2014.

It is further submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines & Geology that if an application is made by the petitioner before respondent No.1 along with condonation of delay,