The Court disposed of the writ petition regarding recovery of seigniorage charges and penalty on sand contracts, following its order in a previous writ petition. The petitioner was directed to prove deduction of seigniorage charges; failing which, respondents were entitled to recover charges with penalty.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 11234 OF 2011
Between:
...PETITIONER
AND
6. The Pay and Accounts Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
...RESPONDENTS
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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in issuing instructions to effect recover the seigniorage charges on sand with one time penalty from the bills and deposits of the petitioner pertaining to the Agreement No. /2008-09 dt. 7-7-2008 for the work executed by the petitioner where permits for sand issued by the Mines Department are not produced, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust apart from violative of principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents not to recover Seigniorage charges with penalty from the bills and deposits of the petitioner
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP. NO: 13757 OF 2011)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to recover seigniorage charges on sand with one time penalty from the bills and deposits of the petitioner pertaining to the Agreement No. /2008-09 dt. 7-7-2008 pending disposal of the Main Writ Petition
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B.S. REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 6: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT
The Court made the following Order
1
I
;! ,/
APHC010158402011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 11234/2011
Between:
G. Rama Kriishna Reddy ...PETITIONER
AND
The Govt Of Ap Rep By Its and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.BS REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING
2.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV
3.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking the following relief:
\
“ to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in issuing instructions toeffectrecoverthe seigniorage charges on sand with one time penalty fromthebillsand deposits of the petitioner pertaining to the agreementNo2008-2009 dt 7.7.2008 for the work executed by the petitioner where permits for
2
\
sand issued by the Mines Department are not producedas illegal, arbitrary, unjust apart from violative of principlesof NaturalJusticeand consequently direct the respondents not to recover Seigniorage charges with penalty from the bills and deposits of the petitioner.”
- Following the above said judgment and for the reasonsrecorded therein, the Writ Petition is disposed of, thus:
(a) In the event petitioner filed proof to the effect that seigniorage charges were deducted from his bills by the Departmentsconcerned,under whom he has executed the contract works, no penalty shall be levied as per G.O.Ms.No.84, Industries & Commerce (Ml) Department,dated 10.04.2007 lest the respondents shall be entitled to recover seigniorage charges along with one time penalty as per the aforesaid G.O. Thereshallbenoorderasto costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stands closed.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- P.U.V. BHASKARA RAO ASSISTANT,R,EG1SJRAR SECTraN OFFICER
To,
HIGH COURT
DATED: 08/07/2024
ORDER
WP.No.11234 of 2011
^ 0 3 MAR 2D?5 |
. Current Section . ^
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the recovery of seigniorage charges and penalty from the petitioner's bills and deposits was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of natural justice?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to immunity from penalty if he proves deduction of seigniorage charges?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.No.21228 of 2011, dated 09.07.2021Followed¶58
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G. Rama Krishna Reddy
The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department
The Director of Mines and Geology
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Principal Secretary, Finance & Planning (Works & Project) Department
The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department, Kurnool
The Executive Engineer Panchayat Raj Department, Kurnool
Dr Justice K Manmadha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
