M/S Salasar Balaji Granites vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1436 AP

   HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                 WRIT PETITION No.7007 of 2022

ORDER:

The petitioner has a mineral dealer license, issued in the

year 2018, for a period of 20 years. The 3rd respondent is said to

have issued a show-cause dated 01.10.2019, calling upon the

petitioner to show-cause why seignorage fee said to have been

evaded, should not be collected from the petitioner. Thereafter,

the demand notice No.1422/RV& EO/SKLM/2018-2, dated

25.10.2019 was served on the petitioner demanding an amount

of Rs.13,85,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner

moved a revision under the Rule 35-A of the Andhra Pradesh

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, before the 1st

respondent.

2. While the said revision was pending, the 2nd

respondent issued proceedings No.3139/MDL-SKL/2018, dated

24.02.2022, terminating the mineral dealer licence given to the

petitioner on the ground of non-payment of the demanded

amount of Rs.13,85,000/-.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has now

approached this court by way of the present writ petition.

4. Sri N.Vijay, learned counsel for the petitioner, would

submit that the initial demand itself was bad on the ground of

non service of the show-cause notice and on the ground that

such a demand is not permissible under the Andhra Pradesh

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. He relies upon the

judgment of this Court reported as JMB Rocks Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh & ors1. He further submits that the petitioner

has a clear case in revision. However, since the revision is not

being taken up by the 1st respondent, the petitioner is left

without any remedy as far as termination of the mineral dealer

license is concerned.

5. The learned Government Pleader for Mines &

Geology submits that a writ appeal has been filed against the

Judgment of the Learned Single Judge cited above. He further

submits that the petitioner cannot contend that pendency of the

revision petition is sufficient for non-payment of the amounts

demanded.

6. The petitioner has availed of his remedy available

under the act and rules. However, the non disposal of the said

revision clearly prejudices the petitioner rights. The petitioner is

clearly entitled to a hearing at the earliest and delay in the said

hearing, on account of the 1st respondent, cannot result in the

petitioner being left without any remedy to dispute the

subsequent proceedings to cancelling the license of the

petitioner.

7. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed

of directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the revision filed by

the petitioner against the demand notice bearing No.1422/RV&

EO/SKLM/2018-2, dated 25.10.2019 at the earliest. Needless to

2020 (6) ALD 420 (AP)

say, the order of cancellation issued by way of proceedings

No.3139/MDL-SKL/2018, dated 24.02.2022 shall remain

stayed pending the said revision and the said order of

termination of the license shall abide by the result of the

revision. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

shall stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

23.03.2022 BSM

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.7007 of 2022

23.03.2022

BSM