Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S. Hari Jyothi Granites vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 27 January, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
WRIT PETITION No.1835 of 2022
ORDER:-
Heard Sri M.Santosh Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri K.Naveen Kumar, learned Government
Pleader for Mines and Geology for the respondents.
Memo No.883/M.I(1)/2019-3 dated 18.12.2019 of the 1st
respondent herein and also the demand notice bearing No.
1119(2)/V&E/2018 dated 18.12.2018 of the Assistant
Director, Mines and Geology/ 4th respondent herein are under
challenge in the present writ petition.
Preceded by a show cause notice bearing No.
1119(2)/V&E/2018 dated 27.10.2018, calling upon the
petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be
initiated under Rule 26(3)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, as amended vide
G.O.Ms.No.37 Industries and Commerce (M-II) Department
dated 14.03.2016, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology
vide demand notice bearing No.1119(2)/V&E/2018 dated
18.12.2018, requested the petitioner to pay a total sum of
Rs.14,38,674/- which includes normal seigniorage fee of
Rs.1,92,012/-, market value of Rs.7,46,662/- and penalty of
Rs.5,00,000/-. 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 on 08.02.2019 under Rule
35(A) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules,
1966. The revisional authority vide Memo No.
883/M.I(1)/2019-3 dated 18.12.2019, partly allowed the said
revision application filed by the petitioner herein and directed
the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.9,38,674/- which
includes Rs.1,92,012 towards normal seigniorage fee and
Rs.7,46,662/- towards market value, waiving off the penalty
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- .
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
impugned action, which culminated in the issuance of the
demand notice dated 18.12.2018, is highly illegal, arbitrary,
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 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 constructed. 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.
In fact, following the aforesaid judgment, W.P.No.43370
of 2018 also came to be allowed. It is brought to the notice of
this Court by the learned counsel that though the Letters
Patent Appeal has been preferred against the aforesaid
judgment, no stay has been granted by the Division Bench .
In view of the above reasons, following the judgments
rendered by this Court, referred to supra, and the principle
laid down therein, this writ petition is allowed in terms thereof,
setting aside the demand notice No.1119(2)/V&E/2018 dated
18.12.2018 of the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology,
Ongole/ 4th respondent herein and the order of the State
Government in revision vide Memo No.883/M.I(1)/2019-3
dated 18.12.2019. However, this order will not preclude the
respondents from taking appropriate action as per Rules.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Writ
Petition shall stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
Date:27.01.2022
BSP
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
WRIT PETITION No.1835 OF 2022
Date: 27.01.2022
BSP
