THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25006 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner was awarded the contract of formation of a new tank across the branch of Yerra Vagu near Bheemini Village and Mandal, Adilabad District. Agreement in this regard was executed on 24.01.2004. One of the items included in the agreement is the rate of seigniorage fee to be paid on the minerals that are utilized in the work. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents started levying higher rate of seigniorage fee than what was stipulated in the agreement on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.217 Industries & Commerce (M1) Department, dated 29.09.2004. The petitioner contends that there is no justification for the respondents in levying the enhanced amount of seigniorage fee. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that the agreement itself provides for levying of seigniorage fee depending upon the rates stipulated by the Government from time to time and that the representation made by the petitioner in this regard was rejected duly stating the reasons. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation. The only dispute between the petitioner and the respondents is about the rate of seigniorage fee to be levied on the minerals utilized in the work. Even while stipulating the rate of seigniorage fee, the agreement mandates that it is liable to be revised depending upon the orders that may be passed by the Government from time to time. It is in this context that the levy was made at a higher rate. While admitting the writ petition, this Court left it open to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents and an arrangement was also directed. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the representation has since been rejected. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the same, he has to work out his remedies separately. For all practical purposes, his grievance in this writ petition stands redressed with the disposal of the representation, in compliance with the interim orders passed by this Court. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies vis-à-vis the order of rejection passed by the respondents in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.32019 of 2006. The respondents shall communicate a copy of the order of rejection to the petitioner, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:24.03.2009 Note: Issue cc in one week. (B/o) kdl