THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2202 of 2005 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner questions notice, dated 30.11.2004 issued by the second respondent – Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, demanding him an amount of Rs.47,637/- towards royalty/seigniorage fee/dead rent and interest. The petitioner was granted quarry lease for building stone over an extent of Ac.1.00 covered by Survey No.648/1 of Kondagunturu Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, for a period of ten years, through order in proceedings No.5531/Q1/93, dated 22.01.1994, passed by the first respondent – Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Kakinada, East Godavari District. Pursuant to such grant of lease, a lease deed was executed on 04.02.1994 and the lease was to be in force up to 03.02.2004. When it was reported by the second respondent vide letter, dated 24.06.1998 that the petitioner has not paid an amount of Rs.16,822/- towards Mineral Revenue for the period ending 31.03.1998, the first respondent vide order in proceedings No.5133/Q1/93, dated 14.08.1998, declared that the quarry lease granted to the petitioner was lapsed under Rule 17(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’). Thereafter, the impugned notice was issued. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned notice was issued without giving any particulars and was not preceded by any notice and opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that in the order, dated 14.08.1998, passed by the second respondent, a finding was recorded to the effect that the petitioner has stopped operating quarry lease from 1996, as such, there is no reason for charging the seigniorage fee up to 1998. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the second respondent. In the said counter-affidavit, while generally denying various allegations levelled by the petitioner, it is stated that as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Rules, when quarry lease is granted, it is obligatory on the part of the lessee to pay seigniorage fee or dead rent, whichever is higher. It is further stated that as per Mineral Revenue Assessment finalised by the office of the answering respondent, up to the period of lease, lapse orders were passed invoking Rule 17(1) of the Rules and that the petitioner was having accumulated arrears of Rs.19,086/- and Rs.4,273/- towards dead rent and interest respectively, aggregating to Rs.23,358/-. It is also stated that as the said amounts are payable by the petitioner, they are entitled to collect interest @24% per annum as per Rule 19 of the Rules. With regard to the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no notice and opportunity of hearing, it is to be seen that Mineral Revenue/seigniorage fee is payable as per the terms of the agreement entered into pursuant to the grant of lease in Form-G. As the petitioner has not paid the seigniorage fee, the respondents are entitled to collect the same. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Rules, when the quarry lease is granted, the lessee is liable to pay seigniorage fee or dead rent, whichever is higher. In view of the same, no prior notice need be issued before making such demand. Even with regard to the other contention of the learned counsel that as per the order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner stopped quarrying operations in 1996 itself, it is to be noted that unless orders are passed discontinuing the lease granted in favour of the petitioner, he shall continue to pay the same. Merely because a finding is recorded that the petitioner has stopped the quarry that by itself will not exonerate him from payment of seigniorage fee or dead rent. As the order was passed by the first respondent on 14.08.1998 declaring that the lease granted in favour of the petitioner is lapsed, the respondents have rightly calculated the due amount and issued the impugned demand notice. Even with regard to interest, the respondents are empowered to collect the same on the due amounts in view of the provision contained in Rule 19 of the Rules. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned notice issued by the second respondent. The writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th SEPTEMBER, 2010. kvni