THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.1984 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the demand notice No.5623/VIG/2007 dated 17.11.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he is running a stone crushing unit in the name and style of "M/s. Sree Sai Venkateswara Stone Crushers" at Byrapuram village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District, by obtaining all the licences from the authorities concerned. He is maintaining proper records and paying the requisite seigniorage fee regularly without any default. While so, the 3rd respondent has issued a demand notice impugned in this writ petition directing him to remit normal seigniorage fee of Rs.2,10,550/- and one-time penalty of Rs.2,10,550/-, without issuing a show cause notice prior to the demand notice. Being aggrieved by the same, he approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology. 4. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to a Circular Memo No.19178/VG/2000 dated 12.11.2001 whereby the 1st respondent - Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, instructed all the Deputy Directors and the Assistant Directors of Mines and Geology to first issue a show cause notice calling for explanation and then issue a demand notice, if not satisfied with the explanation. He further submitted that in the present case, contrary to the said Circular Memo, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned demand notice. 5. From a reading of the Circular Memo dated 12.11.2001, it is clear that in each and every case wherever making allegations on illegal mining and also demanding for payment of seigniorage fee/royalty with penalty against any person, it is necessary to issue a show cause notice calling for explanation giving reasons for issuing such notice by enclosing the report of allegations levelled against the concerned party. Basing on the explanation received from the person, demand should be raised. 6. In the light of the aforesaid Circular Memo, the 3rd respondent ought not to have issued the impugned demand notice, on the basis of the report of the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Kurnool, dated 06.11.2009. On that socre, the impugned demand notice can be set aside. However, setting aside the impugned demand notice and directing the respondents to issue a show cause notice calling for explanation etc. would further delay the matter. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to offer his explanation to the demand notice dated 17.11.2009 treating it as show cause notice, within a period of four (4) weeks from today, and on receipt of such explanation, the 3rd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, at the earliest. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 3rd February, 2010 cbs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.1984 of 2010 (Disposed of) 3rd February, 2010 cbs