M. Krishnamurthy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O GOVIND REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O 1-6, CHILAMATTURU, VARADAIAHPALEM, KANCHARAPALEM, TIRUPATI DISTRICT - 517541

¶11

M.H.G. CONSTRUCTIONS,, REPRESENTED M. KRISHNAMURTHY, MANAGING PARTNER, R/O 1-6, CHILAMATTURU, VARADAIAHPALEM, TIRUPATI DISTRICT - 517541

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINES AND GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI.

¶15

DIRECTOR MINES AND GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA.

¶16

DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF MINES, SPS NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE

¶17

DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, , DEPARTMENT OF MINES, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, TIRUPATI

¶18

THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SPS NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE.

¶19

THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE BUILDINGS, TIRUPATI.

¶20

2

¶21

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, , MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SPS NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE.

¶22

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT O/O. DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, TIRUPATI.

¶23

AMR INDIA LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, D.NO 8-3-833, PLOT 37 AND 38, PHASE-1, KAMALAPURI COLONY HYDERABAD, TELANGANA 50007

¶24

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶25

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, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Authorities in permitting the Respondent Nos.9 to collect Seigniorage Fee/Consideration Amount without any license/ permission much less authority through illegal AMR Check Post and Website in respect of the minor minerals consumed viz.. Road metal. Gravel and Sand, by Petitioners in Tirupati District for which the Seigniorage Fee/Consideration Amount is already paid to the respective licensees (vendors) as illegal biased, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent Authorities to forthwith take immediate action on Respondent No.9 and refund the amounts illegally collected to the Petitioners and also impose penalties on Respondent No.9 as per law and pass

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶27

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 pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to consider the Petitioners Application (Representation) dated 27/06/2026 and not to permit the Respondent No.9 to collect any Seigniorage Fee/Consideration Amount in Tirupati District through illegal “AMR Check Post & “Website” and pass

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶29

1.Dr.ANANTH S

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶31

1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following:

¶32

3

¶33

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶34

WRIT PETITION NO: 18282 OF 2026

¶35

ORDER:-

¶36

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India

¶37

seeking the following reliefs:-

¶38

“to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Authorities in permitting the Respondent No.9 to collect Seigniorage Fee/Consideration Amount without any license/permission much less authority through illegal “AMR Check Post” and “Website” in respect of the minor minerals consumed viz., Road metal, Gravel and Sand, by Petitioners in Tirupati District for which the Seigniorage Fee/Consideration Amount is already paid to the respective licensees (vendors) as illegal, biased, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent Authorities to forthwith take immediate action on Respondent No.9 and refund the amounts illegally collected to the Petitioners and also impose penalties on Respondent No.9 as per law and pass such other order or orders….”

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶40

The claim of the petitioner herein is that the respondent No.9 without there being any authority or permission illegally collecting Seigniorage Fee, District Mineral Foundation (DMF) Contribution and Merit Contribution from the petitioners, who are under the jurisdiction of the Tirupathi/Chittoor District. He further submits that the respondent No.9 was granted license/agency for collecting seigniorage Fee in respect of transporters-Mines and Minerals regarding the Nellore District, but, the fact remains that respondent No.9 was not granted any license for collecting seigniorage Fee and feeses from the

¶41

4

¶42

contractors regarding Tiruapthi district. Therefore, establishment of check post and collecting the seigniorage Fee by the respondent No.9 within the jurisdiction of the Tirupathi district is illegal, arbitrary. As such, the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 shall initiate appropriate action and to remove the check posts established by the respondent No.9 within the jurisdiction of the Tirupathi district. For which, the petitioner herein submitted a representation dated 27.06.2026 requesting the respondent authorities to take necessary action against the petitioner and to prevent the respondent No.9 from collecting various feeses under the Act illegally. But till date, the respondents neither initiated any steps and nor removed the illegal check posts established by the respondent No.9. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶43

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents furnished written instructions issued by the District Mines and Geology Officer, Tirupati, wherein, it is stated as follows:

¶44

“It is further submitted that M/s. AMR India Ltd., Hyderabad has been awarded the contract for collection of Seigniorage Fee, District Mineral Fund (DMF) contribution and MERIT contribution from Minor Mineral Quarry Lease holders (excluding Ordinary Sand) in the erstwhile SPSR Nellore District for a period of twenty-four (24) months, i.e., from 08.10.2025 to 07.10.2027. Accordingly, the said contractor is authorized to collect the seigniorage Fee, DMF and MERIT contributions only in respect of Minor Mineral Quarry Leases falling within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Divisional Mines and Geology Officer, Gudur.

¶45

Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that, within the jurisdiction of the Office of the District Mines and Geology Officer, Tirupati, no

¶46

5

¶47

Seigniorage Fee Collection Contractor has been appointed or authorized. Consequently, M/s.AMR India Ltd., Hyderabad has neither been authorized to collect, not is it collecting, seigniorage Fee, DMF Contribution or MERIT Contribution from Minor Mineral Quarry Lease holders falling within the jurisdiction of the office of the District Mines and Geology Officer, Tirupathi.”

¶48

He further submits that as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.9 was granted license as collection agent only in respect of Nellore district but not in respect of tirupathi district. Therefore any collection of seignorage fee, DMF and MERIT as an agent from the petitioner and other contractors cannot be permitted and it amounts to illegal. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities expressed their readiness for initiation of action against the respondent No.9 in accordance with law.

¶49

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of, directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 5 to initiate appropriate action regarding the illegal collection of seigniorage fee, DMF, MERIT contribution against the respondent No.9 and to stop such collection and also remove the illegal check posts established if any by the respondent No.9, as early as possible, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the respondents are further directed to take steps for recovery of the amount, if the respondent No.9 already collected any seigniorage fee and

¶50

6

¶51

other feeses from the petitioners and others after conducting a detailed enquiry and investigation into the matter in accordance with law.

¶52