THE HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.13404 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the demand notice dated 24.05.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent/Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, under which the 6th respondent herein was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,12,55,440/- towards normal seigniorage fee together with ten times penalty within 15 days. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It is pleaded that the 6th respondent herein had entered into an agreement, dated 11.05.2007, with the owners of the land situated in Sy.Nos.94, 106, 107, 129/3, 130 and 131/P of Namavaram Village, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam for marketing the plots available in the layout made by the owners. After the 6th respondent commenced the marketing of plots, it appears that the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Visakhapatnam vide his report dated 18.01.2008 informed the 3rd respondent that the 6th respondent was utilizing minor minerals viz., earth/gravel, sand and stones without furnishing proof of payment of seigniorage fee. The Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer also furnished the particulars of the quantity of the minor minerals utilized by the 6th respondent in respect of which seigniorage fee was evaded. On the basis of the said report, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 19.2.2008 calling upon the 6th respondent to show cause as to why action should not be taken for utilizing the quantity of minor minerals for formation of residential layout over an extent of Ac.36.54 cents in Sy.Nos.94, 106, 107, 129/3, 130 and 131/P of Namavaram Village. Having received the same, the 6th respondent submitted his explanation in which the utilization of the minor minerals has not been disputed. The 6th respondent also stated that if there is any seigniorage fee to be paid for the said items, they are ready to pay immediately on hearing from him. Having considered the same, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned demand notice dated 24.5.2008 directing the 6th respondent to pay seigniorage fee together with ten times penalty. Aggrieved by the same, though the 6th respondent filed W.P.No.11804 of 2008, the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court granting leave and liberty to the 6th respondent to work out the remedy of statutory appeal and directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps for a period of two weeks. The petitioner herein claims that under a different agreement development of layout project work was entrusted to him by the owners of the land and on being informed by the 6th respondent about the show cause notice dated 19.02.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has also submitted his explanation dated 17.03.2008 disputing the liability for payment of the seigniorage fee and requesting the 3rd respondent to give an opportunity to establish his case. It is contended that without affording any such opportunity to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned demand notice dated 24.05.2008 merely reiterating the contents of the show cause notice and levying seigniorage fee together with ten times penalty. It is further contended that having referred to his explanation dated 17.03.2008, the 3rd respondent was not justified in issuing the impugned demand without adverting to any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Thus, a declaration is sought that the impugned demand notice is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology appearing for respondents 1 to 5 and also the learned counsel who entered appearance for the 6th respondent. At the out set, it is to be noted that the impugned demand notice was issued on 24.05.2008 against the 6th respondent herein and nothing could be placed before this Court to show that the petitioner herein is made liable to pay the amount demanded under the said notice. The only plea raised by the petitioner is that as per the terms and conditions of the agreements executed by the owners of the land in favour of the petitioner and the 6th respondent, the liability to pay the amount demanded by the 3rd respondent is fastened on the petitioner also and therefore he is entitled to challenge the impugned demand notice on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. It is apparent that the agreements between the owners of the land on one side and the 6th respondent and the petitioner on the other side are non-statutory in nature, the terms and conditions of which are not enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, even assuming that the rights of the petitioner are affected, it is for him to work out the appropriate remedy as available under law, but it is not open to him to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Even otherwise, in W.P.No.11804 of 2008 filed by the 6th respondent, this Court already held that the proper course for the aggrieved party is to approach the appellate authority under the statute. Hence, even assuming that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned demand notice on any ground whatsoever, it is always open to him to work out the statutory remedy of appeal. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to the contentions raised by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to work out the statutory remedy of appeal, if aggrieved. No costs. 22.07.2008. Kgr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.13404 of 2008 Between: Cherukuri Sesha Sai S/o.Late Vara Prasad Rao, D.No.1-9- 129/22/3, Ramnagar, Hyderabad - 500 020. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Mines and Geology, Burgula Rama Krishna Rao Bhavan, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, D.No.10-50-21, Behind Varun Motors, Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Laxminarayananagar, Near Dadi Veerunaidu College, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Tahsildar, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 5 The Superintendent of Police and Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officer, D.No.49-54-3, Balayya Sastry Layout, Visakhapatnam - 530 013. 6 K.Raja Raju S/o.Bangaru Raju, Marketing Agent of M/s. R.R.Realtors, D.No.8-1-113/19, 5th Floor, Srinivasa Complex, Opp: III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature or writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not affording opportunity to the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and against principles of natural justice and consequentially set-aside the show cause notice No.298/Vg/08 dated 19.2.2008 and demand notice dt. 24.5.2008 as without enquiry and against principles of natural justice and pass such other orders or order. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. AKKAM ESHWAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following: