THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.1171 of 2010 DATE:28.01.2010 Between: M/s. SBPL Infrasture Limited, represented by its Authorised Signatory, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. .... Petitioner and The Director, Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .... Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.1171 of 2010 ORDER: According to the petitioner, it is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and formerly known as M/s. Sweety Builders Pvt. Ltd. It is engaged in the business of real estate since 1996. For the purpose of construction of walls, laying of tiles and other civil works at the sites, it has purchased sand from the authorised quarry lessees by paying seigniorage fees under various receipts. It has also purchased readymix concrete for construction work from M/s. Grassim Industries Limited, under various bills. While so, the 2nd respondent issued a demand notice No.4591/VG/2006 dated 23.12.2009 directing it to pay normal seigniorage fee and 5-times penalty totalling to Rs.10,20,211/- and submit the original challans within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Being aggrieved by the same, it approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the readymix concrete cannot be termed as minor mineral, no seigniorage can be levied. When a contract is entered with M/s. Grassim Industries Limited for supply of readymix concrete for construction work, the burden lies on the respondents to ascertain with M/s. Grassim Industries Limited, in case of any fee payable. Without calling for the records from M/s. Grassim Industries Limited and from the authorised lessees for supply of sand, the 2nd respondent issued the notice impugned in this writ petition demanding the petitioner to pay the seigniorage fee and 5-times penalty. 3. The learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, on the other hand, has contended that against the impugned demand notice, an appeal is provided for, under Rule 35 of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. As rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader, without exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned demand notice, the petitioner straight-away approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. In the light of the same and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is diposed of directing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and file an appeal within two (2) weeks from today i.e. on or before 11.02.2009. Till such time, the demand notice No.4591/VG/2006 dated 23.12.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent shall not be given effect to. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 28th January, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. by two days. (b/o) cbs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.1171 of 2010 (Disposed of) 28th January, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. by two days. (b/o) cbs