K. Sowjanya vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 264 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 264 AP
Judgement Date : 21 January, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

K. Sowjanya vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 21 January, 2021

Bench: D Ramesh

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

             WRIT PETITION No.22655 of 2020
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for the following relief/s:

"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari, by calling for the records relating to the 3rd respondent's Demand Notice No.1003/Q/TP/2016, dated 19.10.2020 and quash the same and pass such order or orders ..."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

Government Pleader for Industries & Commerce and learned

Government Pleader for Mines & Geology appearing for the

respondents and with their consent the matter is disposed of

at the stage of admission.

3. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Demand Notice

No.1003/Q/TP/2016, dated 19.10.2020 issued by the

Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Visakhapatnam,

whereunder the petitioner was called upon to pay the alleged

dues of seignorage fee with 10 times penalty, in respect of the

area covered by the temporary permit granted to her. The said

demand notice was not preceded by a show cause notice and

the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to put-forth

her case. The petitioner was granted temporary permits for

excavation of gravel in respect of an extent of Ac 4.00 cents of

land, situated in survey No.375-5 of Kapuluppada Village,

Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, by virtue

of the permission accorded by the Deputy Director of Mines &

Geology, Visakhapatnam vide Memo No.1427/Q1V/TP/2016,

dated 07.10.2016. Temporary permits have been obtained

from time to time by virtue of the said permission and the last

permit was valid upto 08.08.2019. A total quantity of 30,473

cubic meters of Gravel was excavated by the petitioner,

covered by the temporary permits and proportionate

seignorage fee has been paid by the petitioner. Now the

petitioner received the impugned Demand Notice

No.1003/Q/TP/2016, dated 19.10.2020, issued by the

Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Visakhapatnam calling

upon her to pay an amount of Rs.59,67,495/- towards the

alleged due of seignorage fee, calculated on the alleged

differential quantity estimated by the authorities, along with

10 times penalty thereupon i.e., Rs.5,96,74,950/- along with

other alleged dues, totaling to Rs.6,75,52,043/-.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that, the

petitioner is not given an opportunity of hearing before levying

the penalty under the impugned proceedings as is required

under law. Hence, the same is contrary to the ratio decided by

this Court and in support of his case he relied on the

Judgment of this Court referred hereunder:-

"M/s. Siva Stone Crusher, Rep. by its Proprietor A.

Siva Narayana V. Regional Vigilance & Enforcement

Officer, Vigilance & Enforcement Department, Guntur,"

reported in 1997 (4) ALD 795 wherein it is held as follows:

"In other words, a person is entitled to be given an opportunity and to be treated with principles of natural justice. Having availed such an opportunity, if he fails to comply with, he is bound to the consequences of suffering the imposition of penalty. Such a person cannot complain later that he cannot be mulcted to pay the penalty. It is apparent under the circumstances and also in the light of the provisions stated above that it is mandatory for the authority to comply with the provisions in as much as to strengthen it by expanding the application of the principles of natural justice without which the order will be vitiated. Therefore, the question in each case would be whether such compliance has been adhered to by the authority and such a non-compliance has been established against the person who has to be put under the sufferance for payment of penalty".

5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents, on instructions, submitted that no opportunity

of hearing was accorded to the petitioner. But requests this

Court to treat the impugned demand notice dated 19.10.2020

as show cause notice and direct the petitioner to file

objections, if any, within a stipulated time.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently objected

for the same and stated that the 2nd respondent has allegedly

directed to collect mineral revenue from the temporary permit

holders basing on the report submitted by the Deputy

Director of Mines & Geology in the impugned demand notice

dated 19.11.2020. The volume of the pit was already worked