THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.20175 of 2004 ORDER : Order of the State Government, dated 11-10-2004 made in e.Memo.No.139032/M.II(1)/2003-6 and the consequential order of the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad, vide letter No.2323/Vg/2003, dated 20-10-2004 are under challenge in this Writ Petition. By means of the order, dated 11-10-2004, the State Government dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, wherein he had challenged the orders dated 16-08-2003 of the 2nd Respondent requiring him to pay a sum of Rs.3,57,798/- towards penalty under Rule 26(3) (ii) of the A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. By means of the orders of the 2nd Respondent, dated 20-10-2004, consequent upon the dismissal of the revision, the petitioner was directed to pay the said penalty amount. The petitioner claims to be a civil contractor. He constructed a complex in Plot No.78, premises No.10-2-99/2, West Maredpally, Secunderabad, pursuant to a development agreement executed in his favour by the owner of the land. On a report, dated 29-04-2003, of the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Hyderabad City, that the petitioner consumed metal, sand and bricks without paying the seigniorage fee to the Government, the 2nd Respondent issued a Notice, dated 19-05-2003, calling upon the petitioner to submit documentary evidence in proof of payment of seigniorage fee. As the petitioner failed to produce any proof, the order dated 16-08-2003 was passed imposing a penalty of Rs.3,57,798/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision under Rules 35-A of the Rules to the State Government inter alia contending that the construction undertaken by them was its first venture and that it purchased material from the suppliers against the bills and vouchers on payment of the required amounts and that it was prepared to pay the normal seigniorage fee. It appears that the petitioner did not attend the hearing before the Government. The Government, therefore, on drawing a presumption that the petitioner has no valid defence, dismissed the revision petition. Heard Sri Akella Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Industries & Commerce. Although various contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner that he was not heard before the impugned order was passed; that the petitioner cannot be treated as a consumer; that it purchased the material and therefore not liable to pay either the seigniorage or the penalty as it had only purchased material from the suppliers and that at any rate it is not a bulk consumer and therefore not liable under Rule 26 (3). I am not inclined to go into the said issues in this writ petition. A perusal of the order of the State Government shows that the notices intimating the hearings were not served on the petitioner. The order discloses that the notice was sent through telegrams for the hearings scheduled on 26-06-2004 and 03-07-2004 and for the hearings scheduled on 11-08-2004 and 08-09-2004, intimations were sent through registered post with acknowledgement due, but they were returned unserved. To the same effect, the 2nd Respondent has filed the counter. It is, therefore, evident that the petitioner did not receive notice intimating the hearing of the matter. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner had no opportunity to defend his case in the Revision Petition. In the circumstances, I am inclined to allow the Writ Petition on this short ground and remit the matter to the State Government for reconsideration. Accordingly, the order of the State Government, dated 11-10- 2004 made in e.Memo.No.139032/M.II(1)/2003-6 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the state Government directing to restore the revision petition of the petitioner. The State Government shall consider the petition de novo after due notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 18th March, 2011. skmr​ THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.20175 of 2004 Date : 18-03-2011 Between : Venus Constructions, rep. by Proprietor P.Srinivas Rao, Plot No.78, 10-2-99/2, West Marredpally, Secunderabad. .. Petitioner And The Principal Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents