IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No: 9997 of 2004 Between: K.V.Ramakrishna Rao S/o late K.V.Ranga Rao Narsapuram, West Godavari Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj Circle, Kakinda, East Godavari Dist 2 The Executive Engineer Panchayat Raj, Amalapuram, East Godavari Dist .....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 more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to recover seigniorage charges already paid by the petitioner in respect of his work contract covered under Agreement No.16/2001-2002 entered into with the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law and consequently direct the respondents to settle the petitioner's bills and pay the same fortwith, Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. FOR R1 The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 9997 of 2004 O R D E R : The petitioner herein was granted a contract by the respondents for execution of certain works in package No.A.P. 0506(10 works) under agreement dated 04-08-2001. The petitioner sates that the entire work entrusted to him was completed as per the specifications in the agreement and after check measuring the work, certain part payments were made by the respondents. However, the respondents were insisting upon recovery of seigniorage charges from the forward bills of the petitioner based on G.O.Ms.No.195 dated 10-05-1999. The plea of the petitioner that the seigniorage fees was already paid on the mineral used by him was not accepted by the respondents in spite of production of the bills. Hence, the present writ petition assailing the action of the respondents in proposing to recover seigniorage charges already paid by the petitioner. When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an identical question was considered by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.23078 of 2002, which was disposed of by order dated 11-09- 2006 directing the respondents therein to give credit to the amounts already paid towards seigniorage fees at the source of mining, if they produce evidence to that effect or by calling report from the Mines Department in that regard. There was also a direction to the Pay and Accounts Officer to complete the said exercise within a period of three months and the order to be passed shall be a speaking order. The fact that the petitioner herein is also similarly situated has not been disputed by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned Pay and Accounts Officer to take necessary action with regard to the work executed by the petitioner herein in terms of the order dated 11-09-2006 in W.P.No.23078 of 2002 and batch. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 25-11-2008 KLP