IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.31247 of 2011 BETWEEN M/s. Sai Surya Stone Constructions. ... PETITIONER AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Mines and Geology, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. E. MADAN MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following order: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader of Mines and Geology. 2. A demand was made against the petitioner dated 15.10.2011 seeking allegedly evaded seigniorage and the penalty. The said order was questioned by the petitioner under a revision before the first respondent under Rule 35 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1966. The said revision was filed on 24.10.2011 along with application for stay, inter alia, on the ground that the impugned demand has been made without any show cause notice and without opportunity to explain being given to the petitioner. 3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is only with respect to the first respondent not taking up the revision and passing any interim or final orders thereon whereby the petitioner is apprehensive of the demand being executed against them. 4. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders, at least, in the interim application for stay moved by the petitioner along with the revision petition, referred to above, pending before the first respondent. The said orders may be passed within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such orders are passed, the impugned demand dated 15.10.2011 shall not be enforced against the petitioner. The first respondent is free to hear and decide the revision and stay petition in accordance with law. However, the disposal of the stay petition is directed to be expedited, as above. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 25, 2011 DSK