THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3263 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not disposing of the revision filed by the petitioner on 26.12.2008, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’). The petitioner was running ready-mix concrete units. On the ground that the petitioner has not produced the proof of payment of seigniorage fee for the mineral, which it has used, the second respondent - Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, by proceedings bearing No.14256/MR3/2005, dated 06.12.2007, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and ordered the fourth respondent – Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, and the third respondent - Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, to initiate action for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,77,69,274/-, which includes seigniorage fee and five times penalty, from the petitioner. Pursuant to the said proceedings, the fourth respondent - Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, issued notice bearing No.4066/Vg/2004, dated 22.10.2008, demanding aforesaid amount, in exercise of power under Rule 26(3)(ii) of the Rules. As against proceedings, dated 06.12.2007, issued by the second respondent and consequential demand notice, dated 22.10.2008, issued by the fourth respondent, the petitioner carried the matter by way of revision under Rule 35-A of the Rules before the first respondent – Government on 26.12.2008. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the first respondent/revisional authority is not considering the revision filed by the petitioner and on the other hand, the respondents are taking steps to recover the amount due in question by resorting to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. Under the Rules, against the orders of the Director of Mines and Geology, there is a remedy of revision before the Government. When the revision was preferred by the petitioner as early as on 26.12.2008, there is no reason for keeping the same pending for such a long time. In view of pendency of such revision before the Government, it is not desirable to record any finding on merits. Though it is stated that the steps are being taken to recover the amount under the Revenue Recovery Act, as of now, no such proceedings are initiated. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to direct the first respondent/revisional authority to dispose of the revision preferred by the petitioner against the proceedings, dated 06.12.2007, issued by the second respondent and consequential demand notice, dated 22.10.2008, issued by the fourth respondent, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to observe that unless the petitioner is given notice as contemplated under the relevant provisions of law as regards recovery of amount, no coercive steps shall be taken against it. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 14th FEBRUARY, 2011. Note: issue c.c. in two (2) days. kvni