THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6503 of 2011 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents. In this writ petition, petitioner questioned show cause notice, dated 02.02.2011, issued by the third respondent – Deputy Director of Mines and Geology (FAC), Kadapa Region, Kadapa, in proceedings No.162/Q/PLNR/2011. Earlier, on the allegation that he has illegally extracted and transported the metal to a quantity of 2,512 cubic meters outside the leased area granted to the petitioner under the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’), demand letter bearing No.180/Q/2008, dated 06.07.2010, was issued by the fourth respondent – Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Palamaneru, Chittoor District, demanding the petitioner to pay Rs.1,25,600/- towards normal seigniorage fee + two times penalty of Rs.2,51,200/-, totalling to an amount of Rs.3,76,800/-. It is stated that as against the said demand letter, the petitioner carried the matter in revision under Rule 35 of the Rules on 13.07.2010. It is the grievance of the petitioner that when such revision filed by him is pending before the Government, show cause notice, dated 02.02.2011, was issued to him by the third respondent in proceedings No.162/Q/PLNR/2011, alleging that he has not paid the above said demand raised in demand letter, dated 06.07.2010, as such, why action should not be taken against him under the Rules. It is contended by Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that when the revision is pending before the Government, there is no reason or justification on the part of the third respondent to issue show cause notice, dated 02.02.2011, to the petitioner. On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents that the revision filed by the petitioner is pending consideration before the Government and as much as there are no interim orders in such revision, the respondents are justified in issuing show cause notice, dated 02.02.2011, to the petitioner. In demand letter, dated 06.07.2010, there was a demand for an amount of Rs.1,25,600/- towards normal seigniorage fee along with two times penalty of Rs.2,51,200/-. While it is true that the revision was filed by the petitioner before the Government, in the absence of any interim order to that effect, there is no reason for not paying the said amount by the petitioner. Though it is the case of the petitioner that he has not extracted any metal outside his leased area, the same is a matter to be considered in the revision filed by the petitioner before the Government. In view of the plea of the petitioner that he has not extracted and transported the metal illegally and taking into account the pendency of the revision filed by the petitioner before the Government, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents not to take further steps in pursuance of show cause notice, dated 02.02.2011, on condition of the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.1,25,600/- towards normal seigniorage fee, within a period of four (4) weeks from today. There shall be a further direction to the revisional authority to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner on 13.07.2010, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two (2) months from today. It is made clear that the revision is to be disposed of independently on its own merits by considering the pleas of the petitioner. It is also made clear that it is open to the respondents to take further steps subject to final orders to be passed in the revision pending before the Government. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th MARCH, 2011. kvni