IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.20136 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Sri Devi Granites .....PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.20136 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner challenges the order dated 24.05.2010 passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh exercising revisionary jurisdiction and the consequential notice dated 05.06.2010 issued by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Eluru, West Godavari District, demanding that the petitioner pay the normal seigniorage fee. The issue is with regard to the alleged illegal quarrying and transportation of mineral by the petitioner from areas other than the leased area given to it under quarry lease deed dated 10.02.2004. In the first instance, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Eluru, by proceedings dated 06.03.2006 requested the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.62,74,620/- towards normal seignorage fee along with ten times penalty. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Director, Mines and Geology, Hyderabad. The appellate authority disposed of the matter directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.28,16,100/- towards the normal seignorage fee including five times penalty under order dated 15.07.2006. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Rule 35-A of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. By the impugned proceedings dated 24.05.2000, the Government of Andhra Pradesh directed the petitioner to pay the normal seigniorage fee without any penalty. Consequent upon the said order, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Eluru, issued the notice dated 05.06.2010 calling upon the petitioner to pay the said amount within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice. Hence, this Writ Petition. The order passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh exercising revisionary jurisdiction may be perused. "7. Aggrieved by the above Letter of the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Eluru, the present Revision Application has been filed by the petitioner. In the grounds of revision the petitioner has mainly submitted that previously the land was alienated to M/s. Spartek Ceremics India Limited over an extent of 1.30 acres in Sy.No.312/3A and Sy.No.313 (Ext.1.53 acres) of Duddukur (V). Further the petitioner has submitted that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Devarapalli Mandal, has also certified that the area registered as "Tank" Poramboke and there is an existing large pit dug for agricultural operations. As such the petitioner has submitted that they have not at all worked the quarrying operations outside the quarry area in respect of Sy.No.313 of Duddukuru (V). The petitioner has submitted that they have been working the quarrying operations only within the leased area of Sy.No.329 of Duddukuru Village, and hence the demand raised against them is injustice that the pit is not opened up due to illegal quarrying as alleged and the pit is existing old one in the Sy.No.313/P of Duddukuru Village. 8. The petitioner has also submitted that Gedugy structure of Ballast Rocks is completely different from that of granite terrain, hence the percentage of recovery in Ballast rock will be around 65 to 70% and waste around 30 to 35%. Further the petitioner has submitted that the extracted quantities are calculated in different cubic meter without analysis. The petitioner has submitted that the concern officers are calculating in different ways without taking actual waste arosed upto 30 to 35%. Hence, the petitioner requested the Revision Authority to consider a common waste percentage in operating the Ballast Material. 9. In the above circumstances, the petitioner requested the Hon'ble Authority to set aside the demand raised by the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Eluru. 10. In order to dispose of the Revision Application, a hearing was conducted on 18-01-2010 and reviewed the case duly giving opportunity for personal hearing. The Revision Authority after taking the material made available into consideration in general and the grounds of the petitioner in specific, hereby permit the petitioner to pay the normal seigniorage fee (if not paid earlier) without any penalty. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed off under rule 35-A of APMMC Rules, 1966.” In the light of the grounds raised by the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the revisionary authority to deal with the same and pass a reasoned order. However, the order extracted supra does not reflect as to what weighed with the revisionary authority for modifying the order passed by the appellate authority and reducing the amount payable by the petitioner to only the normal seigniorage fee and dispensing with the penalty amount. Being seized of quasi judicial functions, the revisionary authority was required to disclose as to what prevailed over it to come to the said decision. Reason, as pointed by the Supreme Court in Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar and others[1], is the heart beat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless. When the petitioner disputed its very liability to pay the seigniorage fee on the ground that it had not exceeded the lease area, the revisionary authority ought to have dealt with that aspect and given its findings thereupon. The studied silence on the part of the revisionary authority in dealing with the merits of the case as reflected by the impugned order leaves much to be desired. Further, as stated supra no reason is disclosed by the revisionary authority as to why it reduced the amount payable. The order dated 24.05.2010 passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh is therefore liable to be set aside and is accordingly so done. In consequence, the matter is remanded back to the revisionary authority for fresh consideration, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and to pass a reasoned order. This exercise shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meanwhile, the authorities shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner in the matter. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR August 17, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.20136 OF 2010 August 17, 2010 [1] 2003 (11) SCC 519