THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1164 of 2011 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner industry questions show cause notice bearing No.4708/Vg/2010, dated 18.11.2010, issued by the third respondent – Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Medak District. The petitioner industry is involved in the business of stone crushing. On the ground that the Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Ramachandrapuram, inspected the premises of the petitioner industry in Survey No.144 of Khajipally Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District, on 23.07.2010 and 24.07.2010 and detected a quantity of 2965 meters of stone and metal, stored at the crusher site, which is not covered by any proof of payment of seigniorage fee, the third respondent issued the impugned show cause notice calling upon the petitioner industry to submit explanation along with documentary evidence in proof of payment of seigniorage fee for the quantities of stone and metal available in its crusher site, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of it. It is the case of the petitioner industry that it has procured the road metal and building stone from the leaseholder, by name, A.Narsimhulu, who is also a partner in the petitioner industry. It is stated that in explanation, dated 01.12.2010, submitted by the petitioner industry, it is averred that the boulders extracted from the leased area are being used as a captive source of raw material for the crushing unit existing in Survey No.144 of Khajipally Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District, by the petitioner industry. It is also averred that the boulders, which are extracted from the leased area of the lessee are already subjected to seigniorage fee, as such, no seigniorage fee is leviable on the finished product of the petitioner industry and that it has relied on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TEJ BAHADUR DUBE (Dead) BY LRs v. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, F.S. (S.W), HYDERABAD[1]. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner industry that as much as the stock, which was stored at the crusher site, is a finished product, there is no basis for initiating proceedings for collecting seigniorage fee. As much as the impugned notice is a show cause notice, there is no reason to entertain the writ petition at this stage. As the petitioner industry submitted explanation on 01.12.2010, the same has to be considered by the respondents before taking further steps in the matter. As no final orders are passed pursuant to the show cause notice, dated 18.11.2010, and the explanation, dated 01.12.2010, submitted by the petitioner industry, I do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition at this stage. As much as the written explanation has already been submitted by the petitioner industry, I am sure, the respondents will consider the same before taking further steps in the matter. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th JANUARY, 2011. Note: issue c.c. in three (3) days. kvni [1] (2003) 3 SCC 122