IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12685 of 2008 Between: M/s. Surya Prakash & Company, Opp: Aramghar, Sriram Nursery, Sivarampally, Rajendranagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Managing Partner - Sri P. Surya Prakash. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. byits Secretary - Industries & Commerce (Mines-II), Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2.Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Door No.2-1-566/B6 & 7, Nallakunta, Street No.11, Near Shanker Mutt, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction preferably one in the nture of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Memo. Of the 1st respondent vide Memo No. 18627/M.II(1)/2007-1, dated 19-4- 2008 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.KANAKAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.12685 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order, dated 19.04.2008, passed by the first respondent- Government of A.P., is arbitrary and illegal. The impugned order was passed on a revision preferred by the petitioner under Rule 35A of A.P.Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1966 challenging the demand notice, dated 04.08.2007 issued by the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad for payment of seigniorage fee with five times penalty. The penultimate para of the impugned order shows that during hearing, the petitioner himself conceded to pay normal seigniorage fee as per the demand notice and sought only to waive the penalty. Accordingly, accepting the same the revision petition was disposed of waiving the penalty only and granting 30 days time for payment of seigniorage fee. However, in this writ petition even the said demand towards seigniorage fee is questioned on various grounds. The fact that the petitioner himself had conceded before the first respondent for payment of the seigniorage fee as per the demand notice has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner who sought interference by this Court on merits. I am not inclined to enter into merits of the case since on the face of it, the impugned order is a consent order. In case the petitioner disputes the statement recorded in the impugned order that he conceded for payment of the seigniorage fee, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate steps before the first respondent for rectification of the same by working out appropriate remedy as available under law, but no writ petition can be maintained at this stage invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy available under law, the writ petition is disposed of. However, having regard to the fact that the time granted by the first respondent for payment of normal seigniorage fee expires today, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner for a period of one week from today. No costs. _______________ 19.06.2008 Note: Issue CC in two days. (b/o) VGB