M/S. Bethan Granites vs State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 675 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 675 AP
Judgement Date : 8 February, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M/S. Bethan Granites vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 8 February, 2021

Bench: D Ramesh

                HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

                 WRIT PETITION No.383 of 2021
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for the following relief/s:

"...to issue the Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of 1st respondent in Memo.No.7681/M.1(2)/2018, dated 04.12.2020 and the Demand Notice by the 3rd respondent in Demand Notice No.5299/Q/1998, dated 30.07.2018 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unconstitutional and violation of principles of natural justice and by an non-speaking order without notice to the petitioner."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology appearing

for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner

was initially granted a quarry lease over an extent of 4.048

hectares in Sy.No.357 of Kodukulingam Village, Mellaputti

Mandal, Srikakulam District for a period of 5 years in

Proc.No.2873/M/90, dated 15.05.1990. The agreement

entered into the State on 12.12.1990 for 5 years upto

11.12.1995. The quarry lease granted was renewed by the

Director of Mines and Geology in Proc.No.26112/R1-

3B/1997, dated 05.12.1998 with effect from 11.12.1995 for a

period of 5 years upto 11.12.2020. The petitioner has

submitted 2nd renewal application as per Rule within the

stipulated time.

4. While so, the petitioner received show cause notice

dated 22.6.2018 that the technical staff has conducted survey

of the area and excavated the total quantity of 2071.825 cbm.

Petitioner has obtained dispatch permits for quantity of

187.56 M3 and there is stock of 194.265 M3, therefore the

total dressed blocked quantity is 2071.825 M3. The Petitioner

has submitted detailed explanation on 09.07.2018 submitting

in detail the quarry lease is granted way back in the year

1990. Inspite of submission of detailed explanation Assistant

Director of Mines and Geology has issued Demand Notice

dated 30.07.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed

a Revision before the Revisional Authority on 18.08.2018 and

the Revision is partly allowed directing the petitioner to pay

the normal seig. Fee of Rs.55,61,863/- and Rs.55,61,863

towards market value. Further learned counsel for the

petitioner firm relied on the judgment of this Court in, "J M B

Rocks V. State of Andhra Pradesh and others1", and

requested this Court to set aside the impugned demand

notice dated 30.07.2018.

5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents stated that the, A.P. Government has issued

G.O.Ms.No.35, Industries & Commerce (Mines-III)

Department dated 01.07.2020 by amending the A.P. Minor

Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. In view of the amended rule,

2020 (6) ALT 85

the 2nd respondent is competent to impose penalty to control

illegal mining and transportation of minor minerals. Learned

Government Pleader further contended that the ratio decided

by this Court in J M B Rocks case (supra 1) is only for

imposing punishments. But in the instant case, the

respondent authorities have imposed penalty only. Hence, the

learned Government Pleader vehemently argued that the said

judgment does not apply to the present facts and

circumstances of the case.

6. This Court in J M B Rocks V. State of Andhra

Pradesh and others held as follows:

"13. The reading of the amended Rule 26(3)(ii) of the A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules shows that the following penalties can be imposed:-

(A) Punishment by imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years (or) with fine which may extend to Rs.5,00,000/- along with the market value of the mineral and seigniorage fee (or) both"

14. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, this is the punishment that can be imposed by a Court of competent jurisdiction only. The earlier Rule has been drastically amended and the words fine "along with" market value and seigniorage fee or both have been incorporated. Higher punishment is proposed and the power to sentence the defaulter to imprisonment is also given. It is clear that the power of imposing the punishment of imprisonment with or without fine/market value etc., is conferred exclusively to the Courts of competent jurisdiction only and the same cannot be exercised by the Assistant Director of Mines

and Geology(3rd respondent). The fine to be imposed is also linked to the market value and the seignorage fee. Imprisonment upto two years or fine along with market value etc., or both are the alternatives.

15. As per the law of the land, there are within the exclusive domain of the Courts only. Rule 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Dealer's License Rules, 2000 on which the respondent relies upon merely states that penalty can be imposed. This Rule does not override the amended Rule 26(3)(ii) of the Rules and it does not authorize the 3rd respondent to decide on the punishments. The old Rule may have authorized the officials to levy penalty but in this Court's opinion the new Rule by prescribing punishment of imprisonment upto two years or with fine and market value of the mineral etc., or both has taken this power out of the purview of the 3rd respondent and the like. As rightly submitted by the petitioner this is a penal provision and like all penal provisions it should be very strictly construed. The law is well settled and need not be repeated here. The power to impose such punishments of imprisonment with other penalties is exercisable by the competent court's alone".

7. In the light of the judgment stated supra, this

Court is of the opinion that the 3rd respondent has abrogated

himself the power which is to be exercised by the Courts

alone. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that the

G.O.Ms.No.35, Industries & Commerce (Mines-III) Department

came into force on 01.07.2020 amending the A.P. Minor

Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. But the 3rd respondent has

issued the impugned demand notice dated 30.07.2018 much

prior to the amendment without any statutory support.

8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,

the Demand Notice No.5299/Q/1998 dated 30.07.2018

issued by the 3rd respondent -Assistant Director of Mines &