IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 2089 of 2001 Between: M/s . Sri Rama Bricks Industries, Rep. by its Proprietor Sri Bakkidi Bhasker, S/o L.Suryanarayana, 2-3-54, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt of A.P, Rep by its Dy.Secretary to Govt. Industries and Commerce (M-II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Govt of A.P, Rep by its Director Department of Mines and Geology, B.R.K.Bhavan, Hyderabad. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District. 5 The District Collector, Karimnagar. 6 The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Karimnagar. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to quash and set-aside the Memo- No.584/M-II (1)/2000-3 dated 6.1.2001 issued by the 1st Respondent by issuance of a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, void violative of principals of natural justice and violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.POTTIGARI SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following : ORDER: Writ Petitioner challenges the order of the Government, dated 06-01-2001, in Memo No.584/M-II(1)/2000-3, whereunder the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the Director of Mines and Geology, dated 15-12-1999, was rejected and through the said impugned order the Government found that the petitioner has no cause of action for filing the revision, and rejection of appeal earlier by the Director of Mines and Geology was justified. 2. The facts in brief are as follows: The petitioner alleges that it is a Proprietory Small Scale Unit registered for the purpose of manufacture of bricks in his own land and a registration to that effect was granted in his favour by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology in proceedings No.6O/15/Prov/S.S.I/95-96, dated 28- 02-1996, certifying that the said Small Scale Unit for manufacture of bricks and burning of bricks was located in Sy.No.1098 of Raghavapur village of Peddapalli mandal, Karimnagar District. Petitioner complains that a notice, dated 02-04-1998, was issued by the Department of Mines and Geology making a demand of Rs.1,95,000/- towards seigniorage fee and five times penalty thereon, but the said notice was addressed to the brother of the petitioner and not to the petitioner. 3. It is alleged that the petitioner’s brother gave a reply to the said notice on 07-04-1998 categorically stating that he has nothing to do with the said manufacture of bricks and his brother i.e., the petitioner herein is concerned. Petitioner thereafter appears to have moved W.P.No.16114 of 1998 challenging the seizure of the said bricks by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddapalli. When the said Writ Petition came up for hearing, the petitioner has chosen to withdraw the same with a liberty to prosecute an appeal before the competent authority. The said Writ Petition was accordingly disposed of by this Court on 11-06-2008. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Director of Mines and Geology, which was dismissed by the Director vide proceedings No.35251/MRI/99, dated 15-12-1999. The said order of the Director was confirmed under the impugned order of the Government, dated 06-01-2001. 4. Separate counter-affidavits are filed, one by the respondents 2 and 6 and the other by the 1st respondent. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents 2 and 6 it is stated that thirteen lakhs bricks were manufactured during 1995- 96 and 1996-97 and after selling six lakhs bricks, the balance seven lakhs were lying at the site. On the basis of the report received by the Mandal Revenue Officer he has issued a notice, dated 02-04-1998, to one L.Purushotham, the brother of the petitioner. It is stated that under his reply the brother of the petitioner disowned the said bricks and represented that the petitioner herein is actually carrying on the said business of manufacture of bricks as Small Scale Unit. It is further alleged that the Mandal Revenue Officer thereupon, once again, conducted enquiry and recorded the statement of the petitioner on 18-04-1998, wherein he has stated that the bricks do not belong to him and they belong to his brother-L.Purushotham. Since both the aforesaid statements are contradictory and neither the petitioner nor his brother are claiming the bricks, the demand for seigniorage fee and penalty remained unsatisfied. When the petitioner approached this Court questioning the order of the Government, while admitting the Writ Petition on 08-02-2001, this Court granted interim suspension of the said order of the Government on condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.85,000/- within a period of four weeks. Later, on noticing that the petitioner has not deposited the said amount as per the interim orders, vide further order, dated 06-03-2002, this Court has vacated the interim order. It is therefore clear and apparent that the demand with respect to seigniorage fee as well as the penalty has remained as it is and neither the petitioner nor his brother has paid the said amount. 6. While so, it appears that the seven lakhs bricks which were seized remained unclaimed both by the petitioner and his brother and thereupon it is alleged that the same were utilized for the purpose of ‘Janma Bhoomi’ programme. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader. 8. The chequered history of the case as narrated above clearly shows that the bricks, which were manufactured and seized, are disowned by both the petitioner and his brother. The demand for seigniorage fee and the penalty against the said seized goods though remains unsatisfied, the respondents have utilized the said bricks for the purpose which according to them is a public purpose. 9. In the circumstances, therefore, the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not deserve to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J 04th December, 2008. Tsy To 1. The Dy.Secretary to Govt. Govt of A.P, Industries and Commerce (M-II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director, Govt of A.P, Department of Mines and Geology, B.R.K.Bhavan, Hyderabad. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District. 5 The District Collector, Karimnagar. 6 The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Karimnagar. 7. CCs to 8. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{PRASAD}