K Govardhan Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 384 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 384 AP
Judgement Date : 27 January, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

K Govardhan Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 27 January, 2022

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
             WRIT PETITION No.1866 of 2022

ORDER:-

      Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri K.Naveen Kumar, learned Government

Pleader for Mines and Geology for the respondents.

Memo No.5409/M.I(1)/2019-1 dated 23.07.2020 of the

1st respondent herein and also the demand notices bearing No.

1654/Q/2010 dated 11.04.2018 and 20.08.2018 of the

Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Markapuram/ 4th

respondent herein are under challenge in the present writ

petition.

Preceded by a show cause notice bearing No.

1654/Q/2010 dated 14.02.2018, calling upon the petitioner to

show cause as to why action should not be initiated under

Rules 26(1) and 26(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral

Concession Rules, 1966, the Assistant Director of Mines and

Geology vide demand notices bearing No. 1654/Q/2010 dated

11.04.2018 and 20.08.2018, requested the petitioner to pay a

total sum of Rs.51,68,750/- which includes normal seigniorage

fee, market value and penalty. The said demand came to be

raised under Rule 26(3)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor

Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.

Aggrieved by the said demand raised by the Assistant

Director of Mines and Geology, the petitioner herein filed a

revision before the 1st respondent under Rule 35(A) of the

Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The

revisional authority vide Memo No. 5409/M.I(1)/2019-1 dated

23.07.2020, partly allowed the said revision application filed

by the petitioner herein and directed the petitioner herein to

pay a sum of Rs.23,34,375/- towards one time Market Value

while waiving off the balance Market Value and Penalty.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

impugned action, which culminated in the issuance of the

demand notices dated 11.04.2018 and 20.08.2018, is highly

illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and without jurisdiction. In

support of his submissions and contentions, the learned

counsel for the petitioner takes support of the judgment of this

Court in W.P.Nos.8356 of 2020, 8361 of 2020 and 8366 of

2020 dated 06.10.2020 and the judgment in W.P.No.43370 of

2018 dated 08.02.2021. Copies of the said judgments

rendered by this Court are filed along with the present writ

petition as material papers.

In the judgment dated 06.10.2020 in W.P.No. 8356 of

2020 and batch, this Court, while dealing with Rule 26(3)(ii) of

the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules,1966,

held as follows:

"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 (Respondent No.3). The fine to be imposed is also linked to the marked value and the seigniorage fee. Imprisonment up to two years or fine along with market value etc., or both are the alternatives.

As per the law of the land, these 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 up to two years or with fine and market value of the mineral etc., or both has taken this power out of the purview of the 3 rd 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 constructed. The law is well settled and need not be repeated here.