THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.25178 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner claims that in the auction conducted for grant of leasehold rights for quarrying ordinary sand from the reaches of Godavari River in East Godavari District, in pursuance of the auction notification dated 04.04.2007 issued by the District Level Sand Committee, it stood as highest bidder in respect of Reach No.13 of Godavari River, Kapileswarapuram, East Godavari District, and on his depositing the required amounts, the 4th respondent- Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Rajahmundry, executed lease deed dated 29.04.2010 in its favour, for a period of two years i.e. from 01.05.2010 to 31.03.2012, and issued work orders. The petitioner states that when once the 3rd respondent- Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kakinada, issued demand notice dated 13.07.2010 directing it to pay Rs.2,93,460/-, on the allegation that it has excavated and transported the sand beyond 1.00 Mts. depth and that there is excess transportation of sand without valid permits under APMMC Rules, 1966, as detailed in the notice, it has preferred a revision before the Government, who, observing that the lessee has paid the normal seigniorage fee, suspended the said demand notice dated 13.07.2010, by order dated 29.07.2010, pending disposal of the revision petition. While that being so, the 3rd respondent again issued the impugned demand notice dated 10.09.2010, directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.11,10,800/-, towards normal seigniorage fee and penalty for 13885 cubic meters of sand, which was alleged to have stocked within the limits of Godavari Flood Bank in violation of conditions of MDR 2000 and APMMC Rules, 1966. The petitioner states that the alleged stocking of 15772 cubic meters of sand within the limits of Godavari Flood Bank is the subject matter of earlier demand notice dated 13.07.2010, which was suspended by the Government pending further orders, and thus the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned notice demanding amounts for the same quantity of sand is not justified and that there is no necessity to pay the seigniorage fee, as the entire bid amount was paid in advance for two years. Therefore, it has preferred a revision before the 1st respondent, against the impugned demand notice dated 10.09.2010, and the same is pending. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioner that in view of the impugned demand notice, the 4th respondent is not issuing waybills to it for transportation of sand and thus the quarrying operations have come to standstill. When this Court posed a question as to how the 3rd respondent issued the impugned notice demanding seigniorage fee and penalty for the selfsame quantity of sand, which was the subject matter of the earlier notice dated 13.07.2010, which was suspended by the Government pending further orders, the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology submits that the quantity of sand for which the amounts were demanded in the impugned notice is not covered by the earlier notice. He, however, submits that the revision preferred by the petitioner against the impugned notice is still pending consideration. From the above, it appears there is a serious dispute as to payment of seigniorage fee, which according to the petitioner is not necessary and according to the respondents necessary. According to the petitioner, though the Government suspended the earlier demand notice, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned demand notice, demanding seigniorage fee and penalty for the selfsame quantity of sand for which the amounts were demanded in that earlier demand notice, and on this contention, there is no plausible explanation by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. It is also not in dispute that the lease in favour of the petitioner stands exist till 31.03.2012 and thus even if the petitioner fails in the revision pending before the 1st respondent, the respondents will still have an option to collect the amounts from the future works of the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 1st respondent is directed to dispose of the revision preferred by the petitioner against the impugned demand notice dated 10.09.2010 issued by the 3rd respondent, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the respondent authorities are directed to issue waybills for transportation of sand by the petitioner.” __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 7th October, 2010 IBL