IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.Nos.9577 & 10389 of 2005 Date: 9th September, 2010 Between: M/s Royal Apartments, Ravindranagar, Kondayapalem Road, Nellore, rep. by its Managing Partner. .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9577 of 2005 Dwarakamayi Vasthu Skylands, Chandramouli Nagar, Vedayapalem, Nellore, rep. by its Managing Partner Petitioner in W.P.No.10389 of 2005 And The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Nellore and another. .. Respondents in both W.Ps. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.Nos.9577 & 10389 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: In both these two writ petitions, common questions of law and fact arises for consideration, therefore they are being disposed of by this common order. It appears, both the petitioners are Builders in Nellore Town. The impugned notices were issued by the respondents asking the petitioners to pay seigniorage fee for the mineral (sand) used for the construction of the building. At paragraph 5 of the writ affidavit, it is asserted by the petitioners that they are only builders of the apartments and they have nothing to do with the payment of any seigniorage fee. As per Rule 10 of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, (for short ‘the Rules’) the seigniorage fee or dead rent whichever is higher shall be charged on all minor minerals dispatched or consumed from the land at the rate specified in Schedules I and II as the case may be when a quarry lease is granted under the said rules. As per Rule 10(3)(b), the seigniorage fee shall be paid before the mineral is removed from the leased area. Rule 10(4)(a) also specifies that in the event of an authorized agent being appointed, the quarry leaseholders for the specified minor minerals are deemed to have come under the said provision for the payment of seigniorage fee from the date the authorized agent makes arrangement in Form-M for the concerned sector. Similarly, the other sub-clauses of Rule 10 clearly emphasizes that it is the lessee of the quarry that has to pay the seigniorage fee, but not the person who has purchased the metal and bricks. Petitioners are neither lessees nor permit holders and the same also reflects in the notice issued by the first respondent. Therefore, no legal liability is caused upon the petitioners to pay any seigniorage fee much less the penalty as imposed. Though the respondents have filed counter, they have not denied the averments made in paragraph 5 of the writ affidavit and there was no reply for the same. On the other hand, it is stated that under Rule 26(3)(ii) of the Rules, the Vigilance Cell attached to the Department is entitled to cause inspection and ask for production of documents evidencing payment of seigniorage fee for the mineral (sand) used for construction of the apartments. It is unfortunate that no reply is made to paragraph 5 of the writ affidavit. It is deemed that once the mineral was removed from the source, seigniorage fee was paid at that stage itself. May be, in a given case, if it is found that seigniorage fee was not paid at the source, probably the respondents are entitled to collect the same from the original licensee who supplied. But in this case, no such averment was made, except saying that the petitioner failed to produce the evidence in payment of seigniorage fee even against the metal and bricks used for construction of the building. This approach made by the respondent is liable to be deprecated First they must find out that no seigniorage fee was collected at the source and unless such averment is made, they cannot invoke powers under Rule 26(3) of the Rules. For the foregoing reasons, both the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned notices are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 9.9.2010 DA