B.S. Ramachandrudu, Kurnool Dist. Vs the Govt. of a.P., F&P Dept., Hyd & 6 Othrs

¶1

APHC010546782011

¶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

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 7651/2011

¶9

Between:

¶10

B.S. RAMACHANDRUDU, KURNOOL DIST., S/OCHINNA RAMAIAH K.KUTTALA (V), BETHAMCHERLA(M) DHONE (V & M) KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE GOVT OF A P FP DEPT HYD 6 OTHRS, FINANCE & PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

¶14

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

¶15

THE DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION HYD, (WORKS & PROJECTS) FINANCE & PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

¶16

THE SUPEERINTENDING ENGINEER A P EDUCATION AND, WELFARE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, CADAPA.

¶17

THE GOVERNMENT OF A P REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY L, INDUSTRIESS AND COMMERCE, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD.

¶18

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER A P EDUCATION AND, WELFARE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶19

THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER KURNOOL, C/O. PROJECT DIRECTOR, THE DISTRICT WATER MANAGMENT AGENCY, WARANGAL, WARANGAL DISTRICT.

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

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 and its sub-ordinates in issuing instructions to recover the Seignoirage charges on sand with one time penalty from the bills and deposits of the petitioner, where permits for sand issued by the Respondents are not produced as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings in this regard against the petitioner and to pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2011 (WPMP 9507 OF 2011)

¶23

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 deposits payable to the petitioners herein on the ground that they have not produced the permits for sand issued by the respondents, pending disposal of the above WP and to pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.C H SATISH KUMAR

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.4382/GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION

¶28

2.2002/GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE

¶29

3.GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO

¶31

KUNCHEAM

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 7651 of 2011

¶33

The Court made the following Order:

¶34

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶35

India is filed for the following relief:

¶36

“……..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents and its subordinates in issuing instructions to recover the Seignoirage charges on sand with one time penalty from the bills and deposits of the petitioner where permits for sand issued by the Respondents are not produced as illegal arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings in this regard against the petitioner and to pass…….”

¶37

Heard Sri Ch. Satish Kumar, advocate representing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents.

¶38

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ch. Satish Kumar, 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

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

“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.”

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

a) If the petitioner filed proof to the effect that seignorage charges were deducted from their bills by the Departments concerned, under whom they have executed

¶45

the contract works, no penalty shall be levied as per G.O.Ms.No.84 Industries & Commerce (MI) Department, dated 10.04.2007; and

¶46

b) If the petitioner failed to produce such proof, the respondents are entitled to recover seignorage charges along with one time penalty as envisaged in the aforesaid

¶47

G.O.

¶48

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand

¶50

closed.

¶51

____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶52

Date: 10.03.2026 PSA

B.S. Ramachandrudu, Kurnool Dist. v. the Govt. of a.P., F&P Dept., Hyd & 6 Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.S. Ramachandrudu, Kurnool Dist. v. the Govt. of a.P., F&P Dept., Hyd & 6 Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Neelima Granites Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sree Ramakrishna High School Vs Adityanath Das

Manne Goutham Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

L. Rama, Vs Smt. Y. v. Anuradha, I.A.S.

G.V.S. Raju, Vs M/s. Trimex Industries Limited