IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.1830 OF 2006 Between: K.Sudarshan Reddy. … Petitioner AND The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Circle, Warangal and three others. … Respondents This Court made the following: O R D E R : The petitioner, a special contractor, executed works under an agreement dated 18-02-2000 while finalizing his bill in respect of the said work, a sum of Rs.2,94,318/- was deducted towards additional seigniorage charges. Hence, this writ petition. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the recovery of the additional seigniorage charge was contrary to clause No.1 (4) (x) of the Contract Agreement, which provided that seigniorage charges would be recovered from the bills in terms of G.O.Ms. No.195, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, dated 10-05-1999. The said Government Order stipulated that seigniorage charges were to be recovered at the rates prescribed in the Contract Agreement. While so, the seigniorage charges were recovered in terms of G.O.Ms. No.331, Industries and Commerce (MI) Department, dated 21-06-2000 would not be applicable to this case. He accordingly assailed the said deduction and sought a consequential direction to refund the said amount to him. 3. The issue is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in R.M.C.Constructions Ltd., v. The Engineer in Chief[1]. In that case, the Contractor was liable to pay seigniorage charges at the rate of 25% per cubit meter. During the validity of the agreement, the Government enhanced the rates of seigniorage charges under G.O.Ms. No.331, dated 21-06-2000, being in prospective in nature, would have no applicability to existing contract, the Division Bench, however did not accept this contention. The observation of the Division Being in this regard are apposite. “In our considered opinion, the submission that levy and collection of the seigniorage charges at the rate of Rs.33/- per CMT would amount to giving retrospective operation to the amended Rules is misconceived. As we have observed hereinabove, the liability to pay the seigniorage fee specified is with reference to the extraction and removal of the minor minerals from the land for the purpose of consumption in any work whatsoever by the consumer. The State shall be entitled to levy and collect such seigniorage fee on the minor minerals extracted and removed from the land in accordance with the prevalent rates specified under the Rules as on that date of removal or extraction of the minor minerals. That is precisely what has happened in the instant case. The terms and conditions of agreement entered into by and between the parties or such similar arrangement if any made amongst the parties shall have no bearing upon the operation of the statute or statutory Rules as the case may be. The date on which the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondents is totally irrelevant in our considered opinion for the purpose of levy and collection of the seigniorage fee in accordance with the rates specified under the Rules issued and amended from time to time.” 4. In the light of the above ratio, the terms and conditions of the petitioner’s agreement fade into insignificance and have no bearing upon the petitioner’s liability to pay seigniorage fee, in accordance with the rates specified in the Rules as amended from time to time. 5. The Writ Petition is therefore failed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 24-02-2011. KVS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.1830 OF 2006 February 24, 2011 [1] . W.P. No.26040 of 2001, dated 03-03-2003