Pannala Thirupathi Reddy vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 2569 Tel

            HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
                     SRI M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
                                       AND
            HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

                   WRIT APPEAL No.433 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:     (Per Hob'ble The Acting Chief Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)


     This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the

order dt. 11.08.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.18748 of 2021,

wherein, while granting stay of all further proceedings pursuant to

the proceedings dated 04.08.2021 issued by the 4th respondent, the

learned Single Judge imposed a condition of deposit by the

appellants of an amount of Rs.6,77,144/- within four weeks from

the date of the order. The said amount is said to be normal

seigniorage fee levied on the appellants and was subject matter of a

notice dt. 23.12.2020 issued by 4th respondent which was confirmed

in an appeal on 17.06.2021 by 2nd respondent.

2. While it is the contention of the respondents that the

appellants have dug pits and excavated and transported the

mineral, the appellants denied the same.

3. In the impugned orders passed on 23.12.2020 and 17.06.2021

by the 4th and 2nd respondent respectively, they have relied upon

two panchanamas allegedly conducted by Revenue officials on

21.11.2020 and 23.11.2020, wherein it is stated to be recorded that

there was illegal transportation of gravel from the appellants land.

::2::

4. But copies of the panchanamas filed by the appellants do not

disclose that there was any such illegal transportation of gravel from

their land at the time when the panchanamas were made.

5. No other independent evidence is referred to in the orders

passed by respondent Nos.2 and 4 except a newspaper article in

Andhra Prabha Telugu Daily on 19.11.2020.

6. The appellants alleged that they are only farmers, that their

land is rocky land, that they were only levelling the land for

agricultural purposes, and that they are not doing any mining

activity, and the very allegation that they are mining mineral and

then transporting it, is false.

7. Since there is no material placed on record by the respondents

about the appellants transporting any mineral, merely because

there are pits in the land of the appellants, there is no presumption

that they are doing mining activity and transporting mineral.

8. In this view of the matter, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the

condition imposed by the learned Single Judge of deposit of

Rs.6,77,144/- by the appellants for granting stay of all further

proceedings pursuant to the proceedings dt. 04.08.2021 issued by

the 4th respondent, is set aside.

::3::

9. In other words, there shall be stay of all further proceedings

pursuant to the impugned proceedings dated 04.08.2021 issued by

the 4th respondent, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

10. It is made clear that any observations in this order shall not

influence the learned Single Judge when the Writ Petition is taken

up and decided.

11. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Appeal

shall stand closed.

________________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, ACJ

______________________ T.VINOD KUMAR, J

Date: 09.09.2021.

ES