M/S.Siddardha Constructions ... vs The Government Andhra Pradesh, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5247 Tel

           THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                               AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
                                     W.P.No.11682 of 2007
ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

         Heard Ms. N.Shoba, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr. H.Venugopal, learned Government Pleader for Mines and

Geology representing the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

to issue an order or writ one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records in proceedings in demand notice No.593/Q/2007-2 dated 29-03-2007 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interests of justice.

3. In the hearing today, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that identical writ petitions were allowed by a common

order dated 20.09.2006 against which State had filed appeals being

W.A.Nos.33 of 2007 and batch. Writ Appeals were heard along

with a batch of identical matters. By the common judgment and ::2::

order dated 21.09.2022, the writ appeals filed by the State were

dismissed and writ petitions were allowed in terms of the common

order dated 20.09.2006.

4. We have perused the common order dated 21.09.2022 passed

in W.A.Nos.33 of 2007 and batch. We find that the issue raised in

this writ petition is squarely covered by the said order.

5. Relevant portion of the order dated 21.09.2022 reads as

under:

The related writ petitions have been filed by different lessees questioning the action of the authorities of Mines and Geology Department in demanding payment of seigniorage fee ostensibly under Rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, and further sought a direction to the said authorities for proper assessment and collection of seigniorage fee on the excavated and dispatched minerals as required under Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules.

Learned Single Judge by the common order dated 20.09.2006 allowed the writ petitions in respect of which the writ appeals have been filed and held as follows:

"150. As can be seen from the respective stands taken by the parties, the controversy boils down to the mode of charging and further computation thereof. It is needless to say that whether the charging provision and computation provision are at one place or not, they have to be constituted ::3::

as one integrated provision. It is needless to say that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions specified in the lease deeds and it is needless to say that even the lease deeds to be in accordance with the rules governing the field. Strong reliance was placed in G.O.Ms.No.217 and the changes introduced in the schedules in pursuance thereof.

151. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that this will not alter the situation and the learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce contended otherwise.

152. Strong reliance was placed on the Technical Study Report on volumetric and Tonnage Variation due to crushing of stones and boulders. While charging and computing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents are bound to follow the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and it is needless to say that the Schedules under Rule 10 of the Rules also may have to be followed as amended by G.O.Ms.No.217, dated 29.09.2004 referred to supra.

153. The parties are not at controversy or in variation as far as this fundamental principle is concerned, but how to calculate and how to compute and where the same should begin and end, these aspects appear to be the controversial area whereunder the stand of the Government is that by improper calculation or miscalculation the petitioners are trying to escape their liability and on the contrary the petitioners are taking a stand that they are bound by the charging provision and the rates as specified in the schedules and nothing more and nothing beyond. It is needless to say that while interpreting a charging provision or a computation provision normally the same to be strictly construed since it would be fastening the liability and in the event of doubt, the State Government is always at liberty to bring in suitable amendments for the relevant rules.

154. On a careful scrutiny of G.O.Ms.No.217 referred to supra and also the Rules governing the field, as far as its position is concerned, this Court is satisfied that except for certain variations introduced as far as the basic charging and computation are concerned, there is no substantial change or variation. Though the decisions of the Apex Court referred to supra and also of the Division Bench specified above, are delivered in slightly different contexts, the principle laid down in substance is applicable to the present batch of writ petitions.

::4::

155. It is made clear that the respondents are bound to charge and compute in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules governing the field and no doubt the petitioners are bound by the terms and conditions of the respective leases. In any event, the arithmetical or mathematical calculations or the other details worked out by the respondents that too without notice to the affected parties may not be of much relevance in deciding the present batch of writ petitions.

156. Hence, in the light of the above clarification that the parties to these writ petitions are bound to follow the provisions of the Act, the Rules governing the field relating to the charging and computation of the amounts in controversy, and since there cannot be any deviation therefrom, the writ petitioners are bound to succeed and accordingly, the writ petitions are hereby allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.

157. Before parting these cases, it is made clear that the State Government is at liberty to take appropriate steps to make suitable amendments to the concerned Rules, if it is so advised."

Thus, we find that learned Single Judge while interfering with the action of the authorities, however, clarified that the authorities are bound under the law to charge and compute seigniorage fee in accordance with law. But, while doing so, the lessees are required to be put on notice. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge.

We see no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge to warrant interference in the writ appeals. As a matter of fact, the appellate Court vide the order dated 19.01.2007 while admitting W.A.No.33 of 2007 had directed that the appellants (State) and its authorities in the Mines and Geology Department would be entitled to collect seigniorage ::5::

fee strictly in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.

In the course of hearing, our attention has been drawn to G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 31.03.2022, issued by Industries and Commerce (Mines.I) Department, Government of Telangana. As per the said Government Order, certain amendments have been made to Schedule I and Schedule III of Rule 10 of the now Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, which is the successor Rules of the previous Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, exercising powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Serial No.1 of amended Schedule I deals with rates of seigniorage fee for minor minerals like building stone, rough stone/boulders, road metal, ballast and manufactured sand (m-sand), which is Rs.65 per metric tonne.

On thorough consideration of the matter, we do not find any good reason to interfere or dislodge the findings written by the learned Single Judge as clarified above.

Consequently, the writ appeals are dismissed while the writ petitions are allowed in terms of the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge.

6. Following the above, the present writ petition is also allowed.

No costs.

::6::

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

closed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 21.10.2022 LUR