THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.9649 of 2006 Dated: 20.10.2010 BETWEEN M/s. Raja Rajeswari Minerals, Rep. by its Partner P.Rama Krishna. ... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others. ...RESPONDENTS ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in collecting excess royalty and in not computing the royalty on Laterite as per Rule 64-D of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 read with Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Rule 64-D of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 read with Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and consequently direct the third respondent to refund the excess collected amount of royalty in pursuance of Mining Lease granted in G.O.Ms.No.219, Industries & Commerce (M.III) Department dated 14.07.2003 in Sy.Nos.109 and 109/1 to 90 over an extent of Ac.9.09 situated at Gummadidala Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District. According to the petitioner, the third respondent-Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Medak, contrary to Mines & Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short ‘the Rules’), has collected excess royalty from it than its liability. It is the case of the petitioner that an amount of Rs.2,12,030/- towards royalty has been collected in excess from it during the periods from November, 2004 to March, 2005 and April, 2005 to December, 2005 and, therefore, it submitted a representation on 13.01.2006 to the 2nd respondent-Director of Mines and Geology, BRKR Building, Hyderabad, a copy of which was marked to the 3rd respondent, requesting to revive the royalty rate and adjust the excess paid amount for the future transactions, but the 3rd respondent continued to collect excess royalty from it without any competency. Hence, this writ petition. The third respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that as per revised Mineral Revenue Assessments finalized and approved by the Deputy Director of Mines & Geoloy, Nizamabad, the excess royalty amount available to the credit of the lessee is Rs.2,99,387/- as on 31.03.2006. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the stand taken by the 3rd respondent in the counter affidavit filed by him, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representation dated 13.01.2006 purported to have been submitted by the petitioner in the light of the counter filed by him in this writ petition, and pass appropriate orders, as per law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J October 20, 2010 v v