IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23263 of 2004 Between: M/s. B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Ltd., Hyderabad. … Petitioner And Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce Dept., Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar Counsel for respondents 1,4&5: GP for Mines & Geology The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23263 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside letter dated 16.07.2004 of respondent No.4. The petitioner is a company involved in building constructions. It has executed works on a regular basis with respondent No.3. A dispute arose with respect to payment of seigniorage charges pertaining to a contract for construction of 694 quarters for respondent Nos.2 and 3 during the year 1993-94. After exchange of correspondence, an order was passed on 18.05.1998 by the Additional Chief Engineer (Civil), Singareni Collieries Company Limited demanding a sum of Rs. 8,21,850/- towards seigniorage fees for the quarry material used by the petitioner in constructions. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.20487 of 1998 in this Court. The said writ petition was heard and disposed of by this Court by order dated 04.03.2004, whereby the petitioner was permitted to submit a representation with relevant documents and material and respondent No.4 was directed to consider and take a decision thereon in accordance with law. In purported compliance of the said order, respondent No.4 passed the impugned order, whereby, while rejecting the material placed by the petitioner, he has reiterated his earlier demand of Rs. 8,21,850/-. Questioning this order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, mainly submitted that the order passed by respondent No.4 is cryptic and devoid of proper reasons. He therefore submitted that the said order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. The learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology made vain attempts to justify the said order. I have carefully considered the impugned order passed by respondent No.4. A reading of the said order shows that on verification of the waybills produced by the petitioner, they were found not acceptable for the following reasons. “1. Duplicate way bills were written by pen, which was not correct. The same has to be written by carbon copy. 2. In all waybills, there are over writing which is not acceptable. 3. Most of waybills were used in other contract works and again submitted by you. 4. As per the office records, there is no requisition for issue of Mineral Revenue Clearance Certificate submitted by your and there is no records regarding issue of Mineral Revenue Clearance Certificate in the company. 5. It is informed that once Mineral Revenue Clearance Certificate issued by this office, the waybills has to be retained in this office, whereas in this case, the waybills are with you.” In my opinion, the reasons given by respondent No.4 for rejecting the material submitted by the petitioner are too vague and generic. For example, the first reason of rejection is that the duplicate waybills were written with pen and that the same has to be written by carbon copy. Similarly, in reason No.2, it is stated that in all waybills there are over writings and in reason No.3 it is stated that most of the waybills were used in other contract works and again they were submitted in connection with the present contract. In my opinion, these reasons are hardly justifiable. No details whatsoever have been given with reference to the number of the waybill and the effect of writing with pen or corrections etc. Respondent No.4 has not stated as to which rule prohibits writing of waybills with pen. Similarly respondent No.4 has not indicated how many waybills contained overwriting and what its effect is. Unless, respondent No.4 refers to each of the waybills and point out the specific defect, he cannot reject the waybills produced by the petitioner in an omnibus fashion as was done by him in the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. Respondent No.4 is directed to reconsider all the waybills and other material, if any filed by the petitioner and pass an appropriate order assigning cogent reasons, if he intends to reject the waybills and other material. The order so passed shall be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.30514 of 2004 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 15.07.2010. ES