THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No.34535 of 2024

O R D E R:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, and perused the record.

2. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioners assail the action of the 1^st respondent in dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner under Rule 35A of the Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘APMMC Rules’), vide order, dt.16.10.2024, as being illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction and violative of provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act, 1957’).

3. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that it was granted quarry lease for building stones and road metals in an extent of 0.50 Hectors in survey No.10/14B of Babuldoor Village, Ichoda Mandal, Adilabad District, for a period of 15 years w.e.f. 23.12.2006 to 22.12.2021; that the petitioner had sought for renewal of the quarry lease for a period of

20 years by making an application on 06.06.2022; that the aforesaid application is pending consideration.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that while the application filed by it for renewal of the quarry lease is pending consideration, the technical staff of the respondents along with empanelled agency have conducted ETS Survey on 09.03.2023; that based on the aforesaid survey, the 4^th respondent-authority has issued a show-cause notice, dt.04.03.2024, claiming that while the petitioner had obtained dispatch permit for 17,391.52 MT of mineral excavated from the pit falling within the lease area, but dispatched the excavated mineral of 51,252.038 MT within the lease area and hence, the remaining quantity of 33,820.5118 MT is treated as illegal excavation; that the respondents further alleged that the petitioner had excavated and transported mineral from outside the lease area; and thus, the petitioner violated Rule 26(2) of the APMMC Rules (Telangana Adoption Rules) 1966; that as per Rule 34(1) of APMMC Rules, no mineral shall be dispatched from any lease area without valid permit issued by the concerned authorities on behalf of Director of Mines & Geology; that since, the petitioner had extracted the minor mineral and transported the same beyond the quarry lease area without payment of seigniorage fee, the said quantity of minor mineral transported without obtaining permission shall be liable to payment of normal seigniorage fee in addition to penalty in terms of Section 26(3)(2) and Rule 26(2) of APMMC Rules, and called upon the petitioner to submit an explanation within (07) days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

5. Petitioner contends that on being served with the aforesaid notice, it had submitted a detailed explanation vide its reply, dt.20.03.2004, and that the 4th respondent-authority without considering the aforesaid explanation had issued a demand notice,dt.30.03.2024, claiming that the petitioner is liable to pay normal seigniorage fee in a sum of Rs.21,98,365/- in respect of the quantity of minor and mineral to an extent of 33,821 MT excavated within the quarry lease area and a sum of Rs.97,25,040/- in respect of the quantity of minor mineral of 1,49,616 MT excavated outside the quarry lease area, in all totaling to Rs.1,19,23,405/- and also levied penalty in a sum of Rs.1,09,91,825/- being 5 times penalty payable in respect of the quantity of 33,821 MT of minor mineral quarried within the quarry lease area and Rs.9,72,50,400/- being the 10 times penalty payable in respect of quantity of 1,49,616 MT of minor mineral quarried outside the quarry lease area, totalling an amount of Rs.10,82,42,225/- towards penalty, and the cumulative total of normal seigniorage fee and penalty of Rs.12,01,65,630/-.

6. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the 4th respondent while issuing the aforesaid demand notice did not consider the explanation, dt.20.03.2024, submitted by the petitioner to the show- caus