IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 437 of 2006 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28/12/2005 in WP NO : 27700 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Tiffins Barytes, Asbestos and Paints Limited., 6B, Kences Towers, North Usman Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-17, Rep by Agent A. Raja Gopal S/o Sanjeevayya 76 Years, R/o Dr. No. 6/69, G. Rama Rao Street, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Director of Mines and Geology, B.r.K.R. Bhavan, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad 2 The Assistant Director Mines and Geology, Yerraguntla, Cuddapah District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MRP.RAJASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Division Bench of this Court made the following judgment: (Judgment follows 2nd page) THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN. * * * WRIT APPEAL NO. 4 3 7 OF 2006 O R D E R : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge in refusing to issue direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to issue dispatch of permits for lifting the mineral and transporting the same on payment of royalty and cess to the Government, the present writ appeal is filed. 2. The learned single Judge noted that the demand notice dated 21-07-2001 was issued calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.2.17,02,755-00 towards royalty and penalty purportedly based on the report of the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Oﬃcer, Tirupati. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner ﬁled WP.No. 6673 of 2005 and the same was disposed of by this court giving liberty to the petitioner to ﬁle a revision petition before the Central Government. The learned single Judge noted that the appellant had ﬁled a revision and the same is pending on admissibility and no stay had been passed and as such the demand raised by the second respondent is without jurisdiction and illegal and if the demand raised by the second respondent is not paid by the lessee, the same cannot be a ground to deny dispatch permits and there is no power vested in the ﬁrst respondent to insist upon the payment of the royalty and penalty thereon. By the Proceedings dated 24-11-2005 the ﬁrst respondent informed the petitioner that in the absence of any stay order from the Central Government, the request of the petitioner could not be considered till the amount of Rs.2.17 crores is paid. 3. The contention raised before the learned single Judge was that if the demand raised by the second respondent is not paid by the petitioner, the same cannot be a ground to deny dispatch permits and as such there is no power vested with the ﬁrst respondent to insist upon the payment of royalty and penalty. The learned single Judge noted that the petitioner had not placed before the court a copy of the notice bearing No.1597/VG/2001, dated 21-7-2001 to know the nature of the levy demanded to be paid. Going by the language in paragraph No.3 of the aﬃdavit, the petitioner had failed to pay the mineral revenue to the State, and therefore, based on the report of the Vigilance Cell, Penalty was imposed and a demand notice was issued. Since no order of stay had been obtained in the revision by the petitioner, the ﬁrst respondent was right in refusing the request of the petitioner. The learned single Judge further observed that appropriate orders of the Government in this regard and that the action of the ﬁrst respondent in denying to dispatch permits on the ground that the petitioner had failed to pay the mineral revenue, there cannot be any inﬁrmity in the same. The discretion of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised in view of default in payment of mineral revenue. 4. Sri P.Rajasekhar, the learned counsel for the appellant urged before the learned single Judge that since the petitioner himself concedes that there was no speciﬁc provision under the rules for withholding dispatch for non-payment of penalty of Rs.2.17 crores. The order of the learned single Judge and the order impugned in the writ petitioners are both liable to be set aside. 5. We are afraid we cannot agree with the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as discussed can grant dispatch permits for lifting and transporting the material is only a consequential act for lifting the material by the lessee subject to payment of royalty etc., and admittedly the petitioner is due a sum of Rs.2.17 crores to the Government and though no orders of stay was passed by the Central Government in the revision and the demand notice dated 21-7-2001 continue to remain in force. We are not inclined to examine the action of the ﬁrst respondent in the impugned order dated 24-11-2005 on technicalities to hold that unless the petitioner has failed to pay the penalty amount of Rs.2.17 crores for more than seven years, it cannot be said that the order of the ﬁrst respondent denying the petitioner to dispatch permits has resulted in any manifested injustice and failure on its part of excessive larger public interest. The order under appeal does not necessitate any interference and the writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances without costs. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN 02-9-2008. I s L ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {TRR}