The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.17186 of 2007 Dated 14th June, 2010 Between: G.Venkata Ramana …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh and 2 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.M.V.Pratap Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Mines & Geology The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Notice, dated 08-05-2007, issued by respondent No.3, whereby he has called upon the petitioner to deposit additional seigniorage fees for transportation of sand and refusing to issue way bill for non-compliance with the said demand, as being illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was successful bidder for operation of sand quarry notified under tender Notice, dated 27-05- 2006. The petitioner was granted lease for a period of one year on 16-12-2006. During the subsistence of lease, several amendments were made to the A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short the Rules). One such amendment pertained to Rule 9-X (c), which deals with payment of seigniorage fees. The said Rule was notified under GO.Ms.No.84, dated 10-04-2007, and accordingly, it came into force with effect from the said date when the petitioner’s lease was in operation. The impugned demand for additional seigniorage fees was made by respondent No.3 in pursuance of the amended Rule. For deciding the issue whether the amended Rules operate retrospectively or not, it is necessary to reproduce Rule 9-X (c) of the Rules. “9-X. Persons authorized to check unauthorized transportation of the sand. (c) The Way bill for transporting sand shall be in the “Form S-5”. The way bills will be issued proportionate to the knocked down bid amount by calculating Seigniorage Fee as specified in the Schedule-1 of Rule 10 of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The bidder is liable to pay Seigniorage Fee additionally and obtain permits for the quantities exceeding the proportionate bid amount.” Sri M.V.Pratap Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the amended Rule has not been given retrospective operation and therefore, it does not affect the existing leases. After hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology representing the respondents, I find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. There is nothing from the language of Rule 9-X (c) of the Rules, which suggests that the said Rule is given retrospective operation either in express terms or by necessary implication. The law is well settled that in order to take away the existing substantive rights of the parties, an amendment shall be given retrospective operation either in express terms or by necessary implication. (see Garikipati Veeraiah vs. M.Subbaiah[1], Dayavati vs. Inderjit[2], K.S.Paripoornan vs. State of Kerala and others[3], Motiram vs. Suraj Bhan[4], Shamsunder and others vs. Ram Kumar[5], Ramvilas Bajaj and others vs. Ashok Kumar and others[6]). As the language of the amended provision does not suggest that such a retrospective operation is given to the said provision, the petitioner is not liable to pay the additional seigniorage charges contrary to the impugned notification and the terms of the lease already entered into by the petitioner with the respondents. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and impugned notice is set aside subject to the petitioner paying the seigniorage charges as per the pre- amended Rule and the lease deed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 14th June, 2010 lur [1] AIR 1957 SC 540 [2] AIR 1966 SC 1423 [3] (1994) 5 SCC 593 [4] AIR 1960 SC 655 [5] (2001) 8 SCC 24 [6] 2007 (4) ALT 348 (L.B.)