IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 14246 of 2009 Between: Indra Builders & Developers, D.No. 4-1-369, 2nd Floor, Indralok Commercial Complex, Beside Jaya International Hotel, Abids, Hyderabad. Rep by its Proprietor Sri A. Venkata Raman, S/o. Late Sri Indrasena ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary- Mines & Geology, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Director, Mines & Geology Department, Hyderabad. .....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 a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the show cause Notice No. 2573/VG-II/2009, dt. 3- 7-2009 issued by the 2nd respondent under Rule - 26 (2) of A.P. Mines & Minerals Concessions Rules 1966, as illegal, arbitrary, non-application of mind and without jurisdiction and set aside the same Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : O R D E R : Aggrieved by the Notice dated 03.07.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent-Assistant Director, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why seignorage fee with ten times penalty amounting to Rs.30,52,962/- for illegally procuring minor minerals while executing the excavation work, should not be collected, he filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not conducted any excavation or digging for the purpose of extracting any mineral or to do business out of the excavated material, but only dug some pits for the purpose of laying foundations in its property for construction of a complex after obtaining necessary permission from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The learned counsel has further contended that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to issue show cause notice, and prays that the impugned notice may be quashed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents and perused the material placed on record. Having regard to the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and having regard to the settled law that no writ petition is maintainable against a show cause notice, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The petitioner is directed to submit his explanation/objections to the show cause notice dated 03.07.2009 raising all objections that he is entitled to under law, including the power and jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to issue such a notice, and on submission of such explanation/objections, the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, and take action in accordance therewith”. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ N.V. RAMANA, J. 16th July, 2009. bcj