Disposed

M/s Mythri stone Crushers, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Nov 2024WP/33746/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Stone crusher challenged a revised demand notice imposing three times penalty plus normal seigniorage fee for minor mineral extraction. Government Pleader conceded one time penalty sufficed under G.O.Ms.No.102. Court declared the memo and demand notice illegal, set them aside, and closed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned memo and demand notice declared illegal and set aside; writ petition closed with no order on costs.

M/s Mythri stone Crushers, Vs The State… — Mining and Natural Resources | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

[3310]

¶2

APHC010093782015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

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

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 33746 OF 2015

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s Mythri Stone Crushers,

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal Secretary and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶16

1.D PANDURANGA REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP)

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

ORDER:-

¶21

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶22

seeking the following relief:

¶23

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing the Memo No. 1391/MI(2)/2010-4 and revised demand notice No.361/V&E/VgGooty/2009 dated 14.08.2015 directing the petitioner to pay three times penalty with normal seigniorage fee illegal, arbitrary and contrary to A.P.

¶24

Minor Mineral Rules 26(3) ii 1966 and consequently set aside the same and pass such other orders....”

¶25

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that this Court passed interim stay pursuant to the revised demand notice bearing dated 14.08.2009 subject to the petitioner paying one time penalty together with normal seigneorage fee within a period of three weeks. One time penalty is sufficient as per G.O.Ms.No.102, Industries and Commerce (Mines-I) Department, dated 28.09.2010.

¶26

Ms. P. Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mines and Geology for the respondents fairly conceded the same and further submitted that in view of the interim order passed by this Court dated 12.10.2015, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition.

¶27

Admittedly, the petitioner has paid three times penalty, no further penalty will be paid in the instant case, as per G.O.Ms.No.102, one time penalty is sufficient.

¶28

Recording the submissions of both the counsel and in the light of G.O.Ms.No.102, Industries and Commerce (Mines-I) Department, dated 28.09.2010, the impugned Memo No. 1391/MI(2)/2010-4 and revised demand notice dated 14.08.2015 is declared as illegal and same is hereby set aside.

¶29

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall

¶31

stand closed.

¶32

______________________________ DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶33

Dated: 25.11.2024.

¶34

M/s Mythri stone Crushers, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Mythri stone Crushers, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narnavaram Chowdamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chinthamani Kavitha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Sudhakar Babu Vs .Sri Krishnadevaraya University

M v Ramana Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A One Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt Gowravarapu Koteswaramma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh