THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15242 Of 2008 ORDER: 1 In this Writ Petition the petitioner questioned the orders of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Yerraguntla, kadapa District dated 18.02.2008 issued in Lr.No.1013/Sand/2007 where under the petitioner was asked to deposit additional seigniorage fee for transportation of sand. 2 It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the notification issued by the District Level Committee in notification Rc.No.131/2005/A4, dated 03.02.2005, the petitioner participated in the auction for sale of leasehold rights of sand in Sunnapurallapalli Reach of Jammalamadugu Mandal, Kadapa District, which was notified for Rs.2,60,000/- and became the highest bidder for Rs.2,65,000/-. The petitioner has deposited the bid amount as per the Rules and entered into an agreement. Initially, the lease was for a period of one year and after completion of one year, it was renewed for second year from 25.08.2006 to 24.08.2007 on 10% enhancement. As per the schedule in the agreement, the leasehold rights were confined to the sand reach of Sunnapurallapalli village. During the lease period, it appears, the petitioner could not operate the quarry for a period of 49 days and as such he made a representation to the authorities to permit him to operate the quarry for 49 days after the expiry of the lease period without payment of seigniorage fee in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1, Industries and Commerce Department dated 01.01.2001. While granting such permission, the impugned proceedings are issued stating that the bidder has to pay additional seigniorage fee for grant of disputed terms of the quantity exceeding to that of the proportionate bid amount. 3 The said order appears to have been issued in exercise of power under Rule 9 (x) (C) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. As per the said rule the bidder is liable to pay seigniorage fee additionally and obtain despatch permit for the quantity exceeding that of the proportionate bid amount. 4 When the matter is taken up, it is brought to the notice of this court that the very Rule was challenged before this court and the same was struck down in Writ Petition No.23286 of 2008 and batch by a Division Bench of this Court and while striking down the said Rule, the Division Bench of this Court had also directed for refund of the additional seigniorage fee which was collected from the petitioners therein. 5 As the sole basis for issuing the demand notice is based on Rule 9 (x) (C) of the said Rules, and in view of the fact that the subject matter of the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in W.P.No.23286 of 2008 wherein the said Rule 9 (x) (C) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 was struck down by the Division Bench, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 6 Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No order as to costs. ------------------------------- R.Subhash Reddy, J. 03.11.2011 Kvsn