THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.1014 OF 2004 DATED: 07-07-2011. BETWEEN: THE DIRECTOR OF MINES & GEOLOGY GOVT. OF A.P., BRKR BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER .. APPELLANTS AND THOTA SANJEEVA REDDY AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.1014 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: ( PER JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM) This is a misconceived appeal directed against the judgment dated 31- 03-2004 allowing the writ petition and declaring the deduction of seigniorage fee treating quarry rubbish as minor mineral as contrary to the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, ‘the Act’) and the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 ( for short, ‘the Rules’), made therein. The admitted factual scenario is that the 1st respondent herein (writ petitioner) entered into an agreement/contract No.35/CE/APIIC/94-95 on 24.3.1995 with APIIC for formation and metalling of peripheral roads at the Industrial Development Area, Vakalapudi in Kakinada, East Godavari District. For execution of the said works and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement between the writ petitioner and the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein, the 1st respondent must secure gravel and quarry rubbish from the approved quarry at Samalkota as per the quantities specified in the schedule to the agreement. The 1st respondent did procure quarry rubbish and executed the works for the APIIC. On completion of the work, a sum of Rs.1,93,957/- was deducted from the bills payable to the 1st respondent by the 2nd and 3rd respondents towards seigniorage fee for the quarry rubbish secured from the approved quarry apart from deduction of Rs.25,000/- towards charges for gravel. There is no dispute with regard to the deduction of seigniorage fee for gravel. Despite the writ petitioner addressing to APIIC contending that quarry rubbish is not subject to seigniorage fee, the 3rd respondent herein informed the writ petitioner that a clarification in this regard was sought by the Zonal Manager, APIIC, Kakinada from the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology and the final amount be settled after receipt of the clarification. Thereafter, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kakinada (appellant No.2 herein) by letter dated 16.5.1998 informed the Zonal Manager, APIIC, Kakinada that there is no mineral by name quarry rubbish in the schedule of the Rules amended in G.O.Ms.No.238 Industries and Commerce Department, Dated 9.7.1992 and that only in a subsequent amendment issued in G.O.Ms.No.154, dated 23.7.1996 (after the work was completed by the writ petitioner and much after the date of procuring the quarry rubbish on the approved quarry) the quarry rubbish is included in the schedule, stipulating seigniorage fee at Rs.10/- per Cu.m with effect from 8.8.1996 and by which time the contract between the writ petitioner and the APIIC was concluded. In the above circumstances, the writ petition was allowed holding that since G.O.Ms.No.154, dated 23.7.1996 was operative subsequent to securing of the material by the writ petitioner, collection of seigniorage fee under the provisions of the Act read with the Rules was unwarranted and therefore the deduction made towards seigniorage fee treating quarry rubbish as a minor mineral, is liable to be refunded. In the facts and circumstances recorded above, no case for appellate interference is made out. The appeal is misconceived and the writ appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances, no costs. Dt: 07-07-2011. ( G.RAGHURAM, J ) ( P.DURGA PRASAD, J ) TNB THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.1014 OF 2004 ( Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Justice G.Raghuram ) DATED: 07-07-2011.