THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31758 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents. In this writ petition, petitioner, which is an educational academy, questioned the proceedings, dated 27.09.2010, issued by the first respondent – Assistant Director of Mines and Geology (Vigilance), Tirupati, Chittoor District, issued in letter bearing No.488/VG/V&E- TPT/2010. A perusal of the impugned proceedings indicates that the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Wing of the Director of Mines and Geology inspected the building, belonged to the petitioner, of Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering and Technology, and found that 9753 cubic meters of road metal and 13,84,000 number of bricks have been utilized for construction of building without payment of seigniorage fee. Based on such inspection report, the first respondent has issued the impugned proceedings demanding the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.3,58,756/- towards normal seigniorage fee and five times penalty of Rs.17,93,781/- totalling to an amount of Rs.21,52,537/-. It is submitted that as against the impugned proceedings, the petitioner filed revision petition on 13.12.2010 under Rule 35-A of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’) before the fourth respondent - Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries and Commerce (Mines-II) Department, Hyderabad, and in spite of its request for grant of interim orders, no orders have been passed. It is the grievance of the petitioner that although the revision petition filed by it is pending consideration before the fourth respondent, the respondents are taking coercive steps to recover the amount, which is subject matter of the impugned proceedings. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has given a contract for construction of the building to a third party, who procured material and utilized the same for the purpose of construction, as such, it is not liable to pay neither seigniorage fee nor penalty. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents that as there was no proof of payment of seigniorage fee when the inspection was conducted, the impugned proceedings are issued. It is contended by him that as much as the petitioner is a consumer of the minor minerals, it is liable to pay the impugned demand. Against the order passed by the first respondent, the remedy of revision is provided under Rule 35-A of the Rules. The petitioner already availed the same by filing revision petition on 13.12.2010. It is stated that the revision petition is pending consideration before the fourth respondent. In view of pendency of the revision petition before the fourth respondent, it is not desirable to record any finding on the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not liable to pay and only the contractor is liable to pay. As much as the levy of seigniorage fee is only Rs.3,58,756/- and the levy of five times penalty is Rs.17,93,781/- and also taking into account the pendency of the revision petition before the fourth respondent, I deem it appropriate to direct the fourth respondent to consider and dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. There shall be a further direction to the respondents that the impugned proceedings issued against the petitioner for collection of normal seigniorage fee and penalty shall remain suspended on the condition of petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.3,58,756/-, within a period of two (2) weeks from today. It is made clear that payment made is subject to final orders in the revision petition. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th DECEMBER, 2010. Note: issue c.c. in two (2) days. kvni