Disposed

M/s Src Constructions Pvt. Ltd., v. The Government of A.P. Rep by its Principal Secretary

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Mar 2026WP/20187/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging proposed recovery of seigniorage charges and penalty on sand from the contractor's bills. Following an earlier batch decision in W.P.No.1426 of 2012, the court held no penalty is leviable if proof of deduction of seigniorage charges is produced; otherwise recovery with penalty is permissible.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed: no penalty if petitioner proves seigniorage charges were deducted from bills; otherwise respondents may recover charges with one time penalty per G.O.Ms.No.84.

M/s Src Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Vs The… — Mining and Natural Resources | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010516272011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3504]

¶5

TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 20187/2011

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/S SRC CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAVINDER REDDY, S/O RAMIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O Q.NO.59, LOKANIVA, OLD WAGOS COLONY, SUBASH NAGAR, NIZAMABAD DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE GOVERNMENT OF A P REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE & PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR OF WORKS ACCOUNTS, PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICE, NEAR EXHIBITION GROUNDS, HYDERABAD.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF MINE GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF A.P., HYDERABAD.

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, I&CAD CIRCLE,KURNOOL, KURNOOL DIST.

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, NANDYALA, KURNOOL DIST.

¶17

THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, NANDYALA, KURNOOL DIST.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

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

¶20

pleased toto issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents and their subordinates in proposing to recover the Seigniorage charges on sand with one time penalty from the bills and deposits of the Petitioner, where permits for sand issued by the Mines Department are not produced, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings in this regard against the Petitioner and pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP 24475 OF 2011

¶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 recovery of seigniorage charges on sand with one time penalty from the bills and deposit payable to the petitioner herein on the ground that he has not produced the permits for sand issued by the Mines Department, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 49583 OF 2012

¶24

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 take up the matter i.e. W.P.No.20187/2011 in the caption of "FOR BEING MENTIONED" and pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.P VENKATA RAO

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.1991/GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV

¶29

2.4521/GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶30

3.GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No: 20187 of 2011

¶32

The Court made the following Order:

¶33

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief:

¶34

“…….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents and their subordinates in proposing to recover the Seigniorage charges on sand with one time penalty from the bills and deposits of the Petitioner where permits for sand issued by the Mines Department are not produced as illegal arbitrary unjust violative principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings in this regard against the Petitioner and pass……”

¶35

Heard Sri P Venkata Rao, advocate representing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents.

¶36

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P Venkata Rao, as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology jointly submitted that the identical question involved in the lis already adjudicated by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad on 29.07.2015, itself in W.P.No.1426 of 2012 and batch. The learned AGP for Mines & Geology further states that above batch of cases attained finality too.

¶37

4. At this juncture, it is apt to note dictum followed in the above batch cases is that,

¶38

“a Contractor or the Government Department, whose works are executed by the Contractor, cannot be fastened with the duty to verify whether permits for the sale of sand were obtained by the lessees from the Mines Department and that, therefore, if there is proof that the seignorage charges were collected by the agency, with whom the contractor is executing the work, by way of deduction from his bills and such proof is filed before the Assistant Director of Miens & Geology concerned, no penalty shall be levied.”

¶39

Keeping in view the above submissions coupled with the fact that the identical question dealt by the common high Court, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition in similar lines.

¶40

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, in the following manner:

¶41

a) If the petitioner filed proof to the effect that seignorage

¶42

charges were deducted from their bills by the Departments concerned, under whom they have executed the contract works, no penalty shall be levied as per G.O.Ms.No.84 Industries & Commerce (MI) Department, dated 10.04.2007; and

¶43

b) If the petitioner failed to produce such proof, the

¶44

respondents are entitled to recover seignorage charges along

¶45

with one time penalty as envisaged in the aforesaid G.O.

¶46

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶48

____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM