HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.7819 of 2005 Date: August 12, 2010 Between: M/s.Shyam Stones & Minerals, represented by its proprietor Shanti Kumar Sarda, 7-5-17, Marvadi Bazar, Tandur, Ranga- Reddy District … Petitioner And The Principal Secretary to Govt. and Commissioner for Industrial Promotion, Government of A.P. Industries and Commerce (Mines-II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 2 others … Respondents Order: The petitioner, a proprietary concern dealing in stones and minerals, represented by its proprietor, has filed this writ petition questioning order dated 01-12-2004 passed in Memo No.21207/M-II (1)/2003-3, by the first respondent-Principal Secretary to Government and Commissioner for Industrial Promotion, Govt. of A.P., Industries & Commerce (Mines-II) Department, Hyderabad, confirming order dated 06-11-2003 passed in proceedings No.26430/MR3/03, by the second respondent-Director of Mines & Geology, A.P., Hyderabad. On 29-07-2003, the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology conducted a check on the lorry bearing No. TN 5H 0306, belonging to the petitioner-concern, which was carrying 270 Sq. Mts. of Limestone Slabs from Tandur to Chennai without any documents in support of payment of seigniorage fee. On the ground that there was no transit permit and also no proof of paying seigniorage fee amounting to Rs.9,720/-, the said amount, towards seigniorage fee, along with 5 times thereof, was demanded and collected and the vehicle was released. As against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director of Mines & Geology, which was dismissed by order dated 06-11-2003. Aggrieved of the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner, further, preferred a revision as against the order dated 06-11-2003, before the Government, which also ended in dismissal by order dated 01-12-2004. It is the case of the petitioner that no opportunity was given before the lorry was seized and at the time of checking the lorry was proceeding to Tandur, where the waybill was located, before going to Chennai. It is stated that no notice was issued to the petitioner before demanding and imposing penalty and it is pleaded to set- aside the orders impugned. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents stating that on 29-07-2003, lorry bearing No. TN 5H 0306 was intercepted at Tandur and the driver of the lorry failed to produce the transit pass in proof of having paid seignorage fee for the mineral under transportation. It is further stated that when the driver was questioned, he stated that the relevant documents were either at the office or at the processing unit. It is stated that as per the provision under Rule 26(2) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, seignorage fee and penalty have been collected. Further, it is stated that the very act of the petitioner in remitting the penalty implies that the material has been despatched without valid permit and proof of payment of royalty to the Government. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that there is no substance in the plea of the petitioner that the truck laden with mineral was being taken for weighment at the weighing bridge at Tandur, which is about 4 km. from the unit and after weighment, the truck had to come to the starting point of consignment for transit pass. In normal course, when no opportunity is given before demanding seignorage fee along with penalty, it is a matter to be remanded to the competent authority for passing appropriate orders after affording opportunity to the party who is alleged to have violated the Rules. But, in the case on hand, it is the undisputed case of the petitioner, before the appellate and reviewing authorities and also in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, that the lorry, which was laden with minerals, was intercepted at Tandur and seized on the ground that there was no proof of payment of seignorage fee and also no transit permit. It is the case of the petitioner that the lorry was proceeding to Tandur, but not to Chennai, as alleged, for the purpose of weighment of the stock and then the lorry was to go back to the unit for proceeding to Chennai by carrying requisite documents. May be that the lorry was going to Tandur for weighment at the weigh bridge, but not to Chennai, but even then, the lorry ought to have been accompanied by requisite documents irrespective of its destination. For a moment, even if it is assumed that the lorry was, in fact, going towards Tandur for weighment at the weighbridge, the petitioner has no valid reason to offer as to why necessary documents were not carried along with the lorry. Irrespective of the destination, where the vehicle is heading to, it is not permissible to transport minerals without obtaining required transit permit and without proof of paying seignorage fee. In any event, it is to be noted that seignorage fee and also the penalty has been paid, for failing to produce requisite documents, at the time of seizure and the lorry was released on such payment. The appellate and reviewing authorities, after going through the material on record, arrived at valid findings and rejected the plea of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner, in this writ petition, cannot seek refund of the amount already paid, after this length of time. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) August 12, 2010 MRR