THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25030 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner is a Special Class Contractor. One of the raw materials used by him in the execution of work is sand. On 29.04.2002 Agreement No.5/2002-03 was entered into between him and I & CAD Department. The Executive Engineer, Venkatapuram Gram Panchayat, the sixth respondent herein, from whose jurisdiction the sand was transported, has deducted a sum of Rs.5000/- towards seigniorage fee for sand on the ground that it was not paid. He has also collected a sum of Rs.14,160/- towards penalty from the petitioner. By placing reliance upon various orders passed by the Government, the petitioner contends that levy of seigniorage fee, much less penalty cannot be sustained in law. The Executive Engineer, the fourth respondent herein, filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the sand is a Minor Mineral and its quarrying is regulated by the Rules. According to him, seigniorage fee is payable on the sand used by the petitioner in execution of works, and in case the petitioner has already paid the seigniorage fee at the time of procuring it, he need not pay it once again. It is further averred that if the petitioner was made to pay the seigniorage fee, steps would be taken to refund the same on furnishing proof. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Irrigation. There is no dispute that sand is a minor mineral and quarrying of it is regulated by the relevant Rules. Whenever, it is quarried, seigniorage fee has to be paid either by the lessee of the quarry or the one, who purchased it. Once seigniorage fee is paid at any level, the same cannot be collected at a subsequent stage. The amount of seigniorage fee of certain quantities of sand used by the petitioner is deducted from the current bills obviously under the impression that the material did not suffer levy of that fee. In all fairness, the fourth respondent stated that if the petitioner provides proof of payment of seigniorage fee not only they would not deduct the same, but also would refund incase such payments are made. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall not be entitled to deduct seigniorage fee from the petitioner for the sand used by him in the works, in case he placed proof of payment of seigniorage fee of that quantity. It is further directed that if the petitioner satisfies the respondents that double levy of seigniorage fee has been made steps shall be taken to refund the amount collected in excess, within a period of three months from the date of submission of proof. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 26th March, 2010 Js.