In this batch of writ petitions, common question that arises for consideration is, as to whether the seigniorage fee or dead rent is payable on the gravel or soil that emanates in the course of digging of foundations for civil works of different categories.

2. The petitioners are contractors or agencies, undertaking civil works of different types, mostly entrusted by the Government. In the course of execution of works, be it, for construction of buildings or laying pipelines, the digging or excavation takes place. After the foundations are constructed, or pipelines are laid, as the case may be, part of the earth that is dug from the trenches is used infilling them. The remaining part, which represents the volume of the foundation, or pipe, laid in the trench, would remain. Most of the time, it is spread by the side of the works. In exceptional cases, it is transported to a place, outside the site of construction. In case of construction of buildings, it may be used at other places in the same site.

3. The petitioners have been carrying out works under different contracts. The relevant agreements did not provide for any payment or deduction of seigniorage fee or dead rent on the earth that comes out of the foundations of trenches. The Vigilance Wing of the Mines and Geology Department appears to have taken the view that seigniorage fee or dead rent are payable on such quantities also. Acting on the same, the respective Assistant Directors of Mines and Geology issued demand notices, requiring the petitioners to pay the seigniorage fee on the quantities indicated therein. In certain cases, penalties are also levied.

4. The petitioners contend that the occasion to levy seigniorage free or dead rent would arise, if only a lease, to quarry minor mineral, is granted by the competent authority, and the concerned mineral is quarried and sought to be taken away from the leased area. They submit that none of them are lessees, nor they have made any attempt to quarry the gravel or earth, much less did they make any attempt to transport the mineral to any place, outside.

5. On behalf of the respondents, it is pleaded that the gravel that is excavated in the course of execution of work is a minor mineral and irrespective of the purpose for which it was excavated, seigniorage fee becomes payable as provided for under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules').

6. The arguments on behalf of the petitioners are advanced by Sri E. Manohar, and Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, and Sri C.R. Sridharan, learned Counsel.

7. Learned Additional Advocate General appeared on behalf of the respondents.

8. None of the petitioners have been granted any leases under the rules. Their principal activity is to execute civil works. It is too well known that the digging of trenches becomes necessary either to lay foundations in the course of construction of a building or in the process of laying pipelines for bulk supply of water. The only ground on which the respondents sought to levy seigniorage fee on the petitioners is that in the course of execution of works, considerable quantity of gravel was excavated and only part of it was used in levelling the trenches. The levy is on the estimated differential quantity. For instance, if in a trench of 100 feet length, 5 feet width and 10 feet depth, 500 cubic metres of gravel is taken out, and 600 cubic metres of earth is re-used in filling the trench, after the completion of the civil work, the seiniorage fee sought to be levied upon the remaining quantity of 400 cubic metres. In certain cases, the debt rent is also sought to be levied.

9. The word "mining" is not precisely defined under any enactment. Section 3(d) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, defines the expression, "mining operations", "as any operation undertaken for the purpose of winning any mineral". Beyond that, what constitutes mining is not mentioned, either under that enactment or under the Mi