IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 1624 of 2002 Between: A.Vijaya Kumar H.No. 6-3-841/74, B2, F1 Ameerpet, Hyderabad -16 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Secretary, Industries and comerce The Government of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Director of the Mines and Geology B.R.K.R. Buildings, Tank Bund Road Hyderabad 3 The Asst. Director Mines and Geolgoy, Ranga Reddy Dist .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction , declearing the G.O.Ms.No. 331, Industries and Commerce (M.I) Department, dt. 21/06/2000 to the extent of inclusion of Road Metal/Ballast at S.No. (3) schedule 1 to 10 as Minor Mineral as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unconstitutional and in applicable Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.N.SHOBA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 1624 of 2001 21-07-2009 Oral Order: Though the writ petition is filed challenging the amendments issued to the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’) by G.O.Ms.No. 331 Industries & Commerce (M.I) Department dated 21-06-2000 to the extent that rates of seigniorage fee are also fixed for road metal, after filing of the counter affidavit on behalf of the 1st respondent by the Deputy Secretary, the petitioner is satisfied that the writ petition be disposed of in terms of the averments in paragraph No.20 of the said counter affidavit. The petitioner is a construction company engaged in execution of construction works i.e., laying of roads for the Government of Andhra Pradesh and executing the several works of the Central Government pursuant to the contracts entered into with those agencies. The road metal/ballast or stone dust is used by the petitioner for executing the several works with the State Government, its instrumentalities or the railways, as the case may be. The petitioner has also quarry lease for extraction of rough stone/boulders useful for construction purposes and for road metal and ballast in an extent of 2 hectares in survey Nos. 270 and 271, Vottinagulapally (V), Rajendranagar (M), RR District. The quarry lease was valid up to June, 2008. While the petitioner was working the quarry lease granted to it by the State and had extracted boulders or rough stone from the quarry after paying seigniorage fee and processing it further in the crushing units of the petitioner for the purposes of converting the quarried boulders or rough stone into road metal or ballast of different sizes ranging from 60 mm, 50 mm, 30mm, 40mm, 20mm, 12mm and 6.7mm, the petitioner’s grievance is that the State is charging seigniorage fee not only on the initially quarried rough stone boulders but the road metal or ballast of different sizes as well. According to the petitioner the amendments to the Rules brought about by the amendments in G.O.Ms.No. 331 dated 21-06-2000 facilitate such collection of seigniorage fee twice over, by the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent by the Deputy Secretary to the Government at paragraph No. 20, in response to grounds 5 and 6 of the writ petition, the answering respondent states that the Industries Department is not charging seigniorage fee on finished metal and only for the purpose of cross checking whether the seigniorage fee has at all been paid, the respondents would initiate action under Rule 26 of the Rules. In short, it is the case of the respondents that the petitioners are charged either on the rough stone or boulders or finished metal as the case may be, which is extracted from the quarry. It is settled principle that seigniorage fee is equivalent to royalty in case of major minerals. The tax is described as royalty while in case if minor mineral it is termed as the seigniorage fee. It is also the settled principle that whether royalty or seigniorage fee, is chargeable for the extraction of the mineral from its embedded position in the earth. In this context if the petitioner extracts as part of working the quarry lease granted to it, rough stones and boulders it is only these extractions which are subject to seigniorage fee under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals Regulations Act, 1957 and the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The further processes by the petitioner of the extracted rough stones/boulders is not an event that is susceptible to collection of seigniorage fee. The counter affidavit of the 1st respondent is not at variance with this fundamental assumption of law. In the circumstances and in the light of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the averment in paragraph No.20 of the affidavit. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 21-07-2009 Pvks