IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 7813 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sarala Project Works Pvt. Ltd. Rep by its Managing Director Sri D. Rama Linga Raju, S/o. Krishnam Raju, R/o. D.No. 6-3-1186/5/A, 4th Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt. of A.P. Rep by its Secretary, Industry & Commerce (Mines) Dept., Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Mines and Geology, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Gandhipuram - 3, Rajahmundry. 4 The Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue an order, direction or writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and set-aside impugned notice Lr.No. 6100/Sand (R-42)2007 dated 09-1-2008 declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned notice without adopting the due process of law is bad, illegal, arbitrary, apart from the same being opposed to principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKAT REDDY DONTHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing the Notice/Letter dated 9.1.2008 demanding the petitioner to pay seignorage fee of Rs.86,64,000/-, without following due process of law, as arbitrary and illegal. The case of the petitioner-company is that the respondents issued an Auction Notice, dated 4.9.2007 inviting applications to participate in the auction of sand quarry for the area i.e. Gopalapuram at reach No.42 for the period from 1.10.2007 to 31.3.2008 and the petitioner was declared as the highest bidder. The 4th respondent-District Collector, vide his proceedings dated 28.9.2007, confirmed the bidding in favour of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.38,00,000/- for a period of about 1½ years i.e. upto 31.3.2009 from the date of execution by 20% hike on knocked down bid for the second year from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009. This Court already passed a common order dated 31.3.2008 in W.P.No.2626 of 2008 and batch in favour of similarly situated persons and Fishermen Cooperative Society, with the following direction: “As the State Government is conferred with the power under Rule 9-K(3) of the Rules, to clarify and decide such issues, it is suffice to direct the Government to decide the said issue at an early date preferably within a period of two weeks from today. However, as the lease is for a period of two years commencing from different dates upto 31.3.2009, petitioners shall be permitted to proceed with the quarrying of sand at the reaches, to which they are the lessees, on their paying/depositing the original lease amount along with 20% enhancement as stipulated under Rule 9-P of the Rules as amended as per G.O.Ms.No.84 Industries & Commerce (M.I) Department, dated 10.4.2007.” Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 1st respondent-Government in defiance of the order of this Court issued the impugned Notice/Letter dated 9.1.2008 demanding it to pay seigniorage fee in addition to other charges. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the 1st respondent-Government issued Tender Notice, dated 4.4.2008 on account of failure on the part of the petitioner in depositing the second year lease amount within 45 days before the expiry of the first year lease period. If the amount is paid within a period of 45 days before the expiry of the first year lease period, the 3rd respondent-Asst. Director of Mines & Geology is competent to extend the lease for the second year and if the amount is deposited after 45 days of the expiry of the lease period, it is only the Government, which is competent, to extend lease period for the second year by condoning the delay. Insofar as the first year lease period is concerned, it is not clear as to whether the amount deposited by the petitioner is to be reckoned from the date when the lease was granted or from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009, and in view of this context alone the batch of writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the Government to clarify the same as provided under Section 9-K(3) of the Rules. As the petitioner’s case is also to be considered under Section 9-K(3) of the Rules, this Court is of the view that Notice/Letter dated 9.1.2008 issued by the 1st respondent and the Tender Notification dated 4.4.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent shall not be given effect to for a period of one year i.e. upto 31.3.2009 and thus, the same is kept in abeyance. In terms of the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. ______________ 10.04.2008 Note: Furnish copy by tomorrow B/o bcj