IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ONE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 603 of 2000 Between: M/s. Siri Engineering Contractors, Rep by its Managing Partner Sri B.Nageswara Rao, 54-18-43, Mithilanagar, Near ITI, Vijayawada - 8. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Officer on Special Duty Industries & Commerce (Mines II) Dept. Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, BRKR Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3 Assistant Director, Mines & GRI, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Gandhipuram, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 4 M/s.Godavari fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd., A joint venture of A.P and IFFCO having its registered office, Sebastian Road, Secunderabad- 500003, Rep by its Managing Director. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ Order or Direction more Particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Memo No.16560/M II(I)/98.5 Dt.1.11.1999 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same by declaring it as illegal and void and consequently hold that the petitioner is not liable to pay any penalty towards Mineral Revenue due to the Government under Rule 26(3)of A.P. Mines Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and pass such other further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.603 OF 2000 ORDER : The petitioner firm, being the successful tenderer, was entrusted the work of formation of a railway track from Kakinada Port to the Factory of the 4th respondent under the supervision of South Central Railway. During the execution of the said contract the petitioner utilized 16,795.3 cubic metres of Morrum for which seigniorage fee is chargeable under the provisions of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘the Rules, 1966’). It is the case of the petitioner that a sum of Rs.1.27 lakhs was deducted by the 4th respondent from the running bills of the petitioner towards the payment of the seigniorage fee to the Government. However, the 3rd respondent – Assistant Director of Mines & Geology – by letter dated 24.11.1994 called upon the petitioner to produce the record of evidence to show the payment of seigniorage fee for the quantity of 16,795.3 cubic metres within 10 days failing which five times penalty would be levied under Rule 26 (3) (ii) of the Rules, 1966. A copy of the said letter was also communicated to the 4th respondent. The petitioner by letters dated 19.12.1994 and 5.5.1995 informed the 3rd respondent that the necessary seigniorage fee was already deducted by the 4th respondent from its running bills. To substantiate the said plea, the petitioner enclosed the 4th respondent’s letter dated 3.12.1992 under which the petitioner firm was informed to contact the 3rd respondent and obtain the Mineral Revenue Clearance Certificate. However, the 3rd respondent by letter dated 17.5.1995 while informing the petitioner that the 4th respondent failed to inform whether any seigniorage fee was collected from the contractors and to remit the same to the 3rd respondent’s office by way of demand draft, directed the petitioner to pay a total sum of Rs.5,34,933/- within 10 days towards seigniorage fee, cess and five times penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the 2nd respondent – Director of Mines & Geology – impleading the 4th respondent herein also as a respondent. The said Appeal was dismissed by order dated 30.04.1996 and the further Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the 1st respondent by order dated 1.11.1999. Hence, this writ petition seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent dated 1.11.1999 and to quash the same being arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen, the specific case of the petitioner is that the required seigniorage fee payable to the Government was already deducted by the 4th respondent from its running bills. However the petitioner could not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate the said plea and in spite of the notice the 4th respondent failed to respond. In the circumstances, the petitioner agreed before the 2nd respondent appellate authority to pay the normal seigniorage fee of Rs.83,977/- and Rs.31,071/- and requested the 2nd respondent to waive the penalty. However, the 2nd respondent while observing that the Government is competent authority under the law for waiver of penalties and dismissed the Appeal with a direction to the petitioner to pay the normal seigniorage fee and cess as agreed before approaching the Government for waiver of the penalties. It is the specific case of the petitioner that as ordered by the 2nd respondent seigniorage fee and cess were paid to the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Rajahmundry and then they preferred a Revision Petition before the 1st respondent with a request to waive the penalty. However, the Revision petition was dismissed as not maintainable by the 1st respondent by order dated 1.11.1999 holding as under : “The matter has been examined in consultation with Director of Mines and Geology and a hearing was conducted on 16.4.1999. The contention of the revision petitioner that M/s. Godavari Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited had deducted the seigniorage fee for the minor minerals supplied to them. The revision petitioner was asked by the Department of Mines & Geology to produce documentary evidence ass to the payment of seigniorage fee due to the Government. But the revision petitioner failed to produce the evidence to the department and also at the time of hearing. Hence the revision petition is not maintainable and hereby dismissed.” The learned counsel for the petitioner while submitting that since the normal seigniorage fee and cess as agreed before the 2nd respondent was already paid by the petitioner, the Revision Petition before the 1st respondent was confined only with regard to the waiver of penalty contended that the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 1.11.1999 in rejecting the Revision petition without application of mind to the relevant facts is arbitrary and illegal. It is also contended that since the normal seigniorage fee was already deducted by the 4th respondent from the running bills of the petitioner at the instance of the 2nd respondent, there is absolutely no justification in making the petitioner liable to pay the said amounts once again. Admittedly there is no material to substantiate the petitioner’s claim that the seigniorage fee payable by the petitioner was already deducted by the 4th respondent from its running bills. The 4th respondent did not appear before the respondents 1 to 3 nor there is any appearance on its behalf before this Court in this writ petition. Hence, the correctness of the petitioner’s claim as to the deduction of the amounts cannot be decided and no finding as such can be recorded by this Court. In the absence of any proof to establish the said deductions the 2nd respondent cannot be held to have committed any error in directing the petitioner to pay the normal seigniorage fee and cess. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had also agreed to pay the same and made a request only for waiver of the penalty. In the circumstances, the 1st respondent ought to have verified whether the normal seigniorage fee has already been paid by the petitioner as agreed before the 2nd respondent and ought to have considered the petitioner’s request for waiver of the penalty. However, the 1st respondent merely dismissed the Revision Petition observing that the petitioner failed to produce the documentary evidence as to the payment of seigniorage fee. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 1.11.1999 is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the request of the petitioner for waiver of penalty provided the normal seigniorage fee and cess as agreed before the 2nd respondent are paid and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 18.04.2009 gbs