THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29097 of 2010 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents. In this writ petition, petitioner questioned letter bearing No.2328/VG/2010, dated 03.09.2010, addressed to him by the second respondent - Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Tadipatri, Anantapur District. On the allegation that the petitioner quarried the sand at Chitravathi River near Chinna Chigullarevu Village without prior permission from the Department of Mines and Geology and based on the information furnished by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Team, Anantapur, the second respondent by recording that the petitioner has evaded payment of seigniorage fee of Rs.19,55,872/-, has addressed impugned letter for payment of the said amount together with two (2) times penalty of Rs.39,11,744/- totalling to Rs.58,67,616/- within ten days from the date of receipt thereof. The impugned letter is questioned mainly on the ground that it is not preceded by any notice. When the matter came up for admission on 23.11.2010, it was adjourned to enable the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology to obtain instructions. Today, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology that the impugned letter is not a demand notice and that the petitioner may be permitted to offer his explanation by directing the respondents to confine the impugned letter as a show cause notice. I have perused the copy of the impugned letter, by which, there is no explanation called for from the petitioner, but however, based on the report of the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Team, Anantapur, the petitioner was requested to remit the evaded seigniorage fee of Rs.19,55,872/- together with two times penalty of Rs.39,11,744/-, totalling to Rs.58,67,616/-, as per Rule 26(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. There is also no indication of giving any prior show cause notice and opportunity to the petitioner. As much as the petitioner is disputing such quarrying itself, the respondents ought to have given him an opportunity to explain the same before requesting to remit the evaded seigniorage fee together with two times penalty. In that view of the matter, the impugned letter to the extent of requesting the petitioner to remit Rs.19,55,872/- together with two times penalty of Rs.39,11,744/- is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to treat the impugned letter as a show cause notice. The petitioner is permitted to file explanation to the same within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On filing such explanation, the respondents to consider the objections raised by the petitioner therein, pass appropriate orders and communicate him the same. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th NOVEMBER, 2010. kvni