Allowed

Kusukurthi Radha Krishna, S/o. Subba Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Nov 2024WP/10738/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed writ petitions challenging a demand notice for seigniorage fees and penalties. The court held the notice illegal and arbitrary as it ignored submitted explanations and cited the precedent 2013 (4) ALD 490 to set aside the notice issued under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the demand notice No. 1442A/g/2014-02 dated 16.03.2015 demanding seigniorage fees and penalty of Rs. 12,67,750.

Kusukurthi Radha Krishna, S/o… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

\ ‘

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADH“^AO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 10738 OF 2015

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kusukurthi Radha Krishna, S/o. Subba Rao, Hindu, Male, Aged 47 years, Occ: Cultivation, Vadlavani Palem Panchayat, H/o.Gollavani Cheruvu R/o.Palakollu Rural Mandal and Town, West Godavari District.

¶10

Kasukurthi Sathi Anasuya, W/o.Subba Rao, Hindu, Male, Aged 50 years, Occ: Cultivation, Vadlavani Palem Panchayat, H/o.Gollavani Cheruvu R/o.Palakollu Rural Mandal and Town, West Godavari^District.

¶11

Kasukurthi Padma, W/o.Radha Krishana, Hindu, Female, Aged 43 years,Vadlavani Palem Panchayat, H/o.Gollavani Cheruvu R/o.Pallakollu Rural Mandal and Town, West Godavari^District.

¶12

Bolla Sri Lakshmi Sailaja, W/o. Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, Female, Aged 30 years, Vadlavani Palem Panchayat, H/o.Gollavani^Cheruvu R/o.Pallakollu Rural Mandal and Town, West Godavari^District.

¶13

Kasukurthi Subba Rao @ Subbanna, S/o. Subba Rao, Hindu, Male, Aged 55 years, Vadlavani Palem Panchayat, H/o.Gollavani^Cheruvu R/o. Palakollu Rural Mandal and Mandal, West Godavari^District.

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Mines & Geology Department Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶17

The Director of Mines & Geology, State of Andhra,^PradeshBRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad

¶18

The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, (Vigilance)^NearAthidi Hotel, R.R.Pet, Eluru, West Godavari District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the notice Demand Notice No. 1442A/g/2014-02 dt. 16-03- 2015 issued by the 3'*^ respondent thereby demanding to pay Rs. 2,53,550/- towards normal Seigniorage Fee, TDS and an amount of Rs. 12,67,750/- towards five times Penalty as illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Minor, Mineral Concession Rules and particularly the law laid down by this Hong)le Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (4) ALD 490 and to set aside the said notice.

¶21

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015fWPMP. NO: 14206 OF 2015^

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the Demand Notice No.1442/Vg/2014-02 dt.16- 03-2015 issued by the 3rd respondent thereby pending disposal of the above W.P.

¶23

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017fWVMP. NO: 3748 OF 2017)

¶24

Between:

¶25

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Mines & Geology Department Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶26

The Director of Mines & Geology, State of Andhra, Pradesh BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad

¶27

The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, (Vigilance)^NearAthidi Hotel, R.R.Pet, Eluru, West Godavari District.

¶28

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶29

AND

¶30

Kusukurthi Radha Krishna, S/o. Subba Rao 2. Kasukurthi Sathi Anasuya, W/o.Subba Rao

¶31

¶32

Kasukurthi Padma, W/o.Radha Krishana

¶33

Bolla Sri Lakshmi Sailaja, W/o. Venkateswara Rao

¶34

Kasukurthi Subba Rao @ Subbanna, S/o. Subba Rao

¶35

...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS

¶36

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated. 16.04.2015 in WP No. 10738 of 2015.

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Ms. P.SUDEEPTI, AGP FOR

¶38

MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶39

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶40

APHC010114202015

¶41

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶42

[3310]

¶43

MONDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶44

PRESENT

¶45

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶46

WRIT PETITION NO: 10738 OF 2015

¶47

Between:

¶48

Kusukurthi Radha Krishna, S/o. Subba Rao, and Others

¶49

...PETITIONER(S)

¶50

AND

¶51

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶52

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶53

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶54

1.MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO

¶55

Counsel for the Respondent(S);

¶56

1 .GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP)

¶57

2.GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE (AP)

¶58

The Court made the following:

¶59

ORDER:-

¶60

filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Both the writ petitions are

¶61

India for the following relief;-

¶62

the nature of Writ of “to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in Mandamus declaring the notice Demand Notice No. 1442A/g/2014-02. dated 16.03.2015 issued by the 3^ respondent thereby demanding to pay Rs. 2,53,550/amount of Rs. 12,67,750/- towards five towards normal Seigniorage Fee, TDS and an limes Penalty as illegal, without iurmtitv. contrary^{totheprovisionsoftheA.P.} and particularly the law laid down by this Hon'ble Minor, Mineral Concession Rules

¶63

¶64

Court in the judgment reported in 2013(4) ALD 490 and^{tosetasidethesaidnotice} and pass such other order or orders ”

¶65

The precise case of the petitioners is that they approached the Country and Town Planning and approved the lay out plan their lands in R.S.Nos. 16/1, 16/2, 15/1 of Palakollu Rural Village and Mandal vide L.P.No.106/12; After obtaining lay out plan approval, they levelled the land without filling any gravel from outside. After demarcating the entire land, the petitioners have sold the same to the respective plot^{ownersundervarious} registered sale deeds. While the matter stood thus, the 3"'^ respondent issued show cause notice to the respective plot owners dated 20.11.2014, thereby requesting the Sub-Registrar, Palakolu not to entertain any document pertaining to subject land. The 3^'^ respondent prior^tothe demand^noticehas issued a show cause notice dated 16.02.2015 alleging that the petitioners have consumed 10,203/- cubic meters of ordinary earth and 1,322 cubic meters of gravel for filling the site and asked them to submit explanation. Accordingly, the petitioners have submitted explanation, but the 3 rd respondent instead of dropping further proceedings, directed the petitioners to pay Rs. 2,53,550/- towards normal Seigniorage Fee,^{TDSandanamountof} Rs. 12,67,750/- towards five times penalty in different^{headsunderRule26of} A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition came to^befiled.

¶66

■,'t

¶67

Heard Mr. Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. P.Sudeepti, learned Assistant Government^{Pleader,Mines} and Geology for the respondents.

¶68

Perused the record.

¶69

During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners^{wouldcontendthat} the 3^^ respondent issued demand notice to the petitioners^{withoutconsidering} the explanation submitted by the petitioner in earlier^show-cause notice is highly illegal and arbitrary and also contrary to the^{G.O.Ms.No.37Industries} and Commerce (M.ll) Department dated 14.03.2016 and^{alsoG.O.Ms.No.139,} Industries and Commerce Department dated 12.11.2013.^{Further,hereliedon} a decision of this Court in “Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.,^{Mumbaiv.Stateof} Andhra Pradesh and Others’’^ wherein it was held as^follows:-

¶70

“13. Two expressions employed in this regard need to^{beunderstood:any} person, who is granted lease to quarry any minor mineral^{isplacedunder} obligation to pay the ‘dead rent’ and/ or seigniorage^{fee’.While‘deadrent’is} payable on a flat rate, depending on the area, for^{everyyear,seignioragefee} is levied on the mineral that is excavated. Even if^{alesseedidnotundertake} any activity of mining, after the lease was granted,^{anagreementisentered} into, and he will be under obligation to pay the dead^{rent,ataspecifiedrate} for each hectare of land or part thereof, once in every year. Seigiorage fee however becomes payable only when the mineral Is extracted^orexcavated and it is sought to be taken away from the leased area. This is evident from Rule 10(3)(b) of the Rules:

¶71

Seigniorage fee or dead rent:

(1 )xxx

^ 2013(4) ALD 490

(2)xxx

(3) When the quarry lease is granted-

¶76

(b) the seigniorage fee shall be paid before the mineral is removed from the leased area’’.

¶77

Following the principle laid down by this Court cited supra, this Court opined that the impugned order issued by the 3'^ respondent is quite contrary to the G.O.Ms.No. 37, dated 14.03.2016. Further, this Court passed order dated 19.08.2024 in W.P.No.15173 of 2018 and batch, which is squarely applicable to the facts of this Court. Therefore, the impugned notice dated 16.03.2015 issued by the 3'^^ respondent is declaring as illegal and arbitrary and same is hereby set aside.

¶78