Partly allowed

D. Kaleshavali v. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology

Telangana HC8 Oct 2010WP/19637/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside writ petition proceedings regarding seinerage fees and penalty. It directed respondents to furnish calculation particulars to the petitioner within eight weeks before passing any further order, finding the initial recovery action arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings dated 06.08.2001, 04.11.2001 and 12.06.2003 set aside. Direction to respondents to furnish calculation particulars and petitioner to submit explanation within eight weeks.

D. Kaleshavali Vs The Deputy Director of Mines and… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 19637 of 2003

¶3

Dated: 08.10.2010

¶4

Between: D.Kaleshavali, Ananthapur. AND The Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Kurnool and 2 others.

¶5

..... PETITIONER

¶6

.....RESPONDENTS

¶7

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶8

WRIT PETITION No. 19637 of 2003

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

The petitioner herein claims to be a trader dealing with supply of road metal and stone material to the companies, which export said material to foreign countries. The 2^nd respondent-Assistant Director of Mines and Geology issued a notice dated 06.08.2001 alleging that the failure of the petitioner to submit the documentary evidence that the quantities of cubes mineral sold by him amounts to violation of Rule 26(3) (i) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’) attracting the penalty under Rule 26(3) (ii) of the said Rules. It is further stated that the penalty worked out on the uncovered quantity of cubes mineral sold by Mrs. Pilat Exports comes to Rs.32,98,230/and accordingly called upon the petitioner to remit the said amount within 60 days. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 10.10.2001 requesting the authorities to furnish the details of calculations on which the demanded amount was worked out. However, no details were furnished to the petitioner, but on the other

¶11

hand, a fresh notice dated 04.11.2001 was issued again asking the petitioner to remit the amount of Rs.32,98,230/- under Rule 26 (3) of the Rules. The petitioner had again made a request for calculation sheet of the demanded amount arrived by the authority. Without furnishing any such details, the respondents resorted to proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act on the basis of the 1^st respondent’s instructions dated 12.06.2003 to recover the arrears of Rs.32,98,230/from the petitioner under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the entire action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal.

¶12

It is primarily contended by the petitioner that as the petitioner had never transported any material by himself from his leased area in the shape of cubes to the Chennai Port, the liability to pay the seinerage fees cannot be fixed on him. While submitting that the petitioner had acted only as an agent between the purchaser and buyer, who is the end user, it is contended that the demand for payment of seinerage fee together with penalty is nothing but nonapplication of mind on the part of the respondents.

¶13

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 reiterating that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.32,98,230/towards seinerage fees together with five times penalty. It is also stated that as the petitioner had failed to show the evidence that he had paid the seinerage fees and he had also failed to show the source of material from where it was procured, the impugned demand for seinerage fees together with the penalty was rightly made.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶15

As could be seen from the material available on record, the specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is only a trader in cubes, who purchases the material and supplies the same to the companies, which in turn would export to the foreign countries. Since he did not extract the material by mining operations, it is contended

¶16

that he is not liable to pay the seinerage fees.

¶17

Be that as it may, it is clear from the record placed before this Court that before fixing the liability on the petitioner vide notice dated 06.08.2001 there was no opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation effectively since the details of calculation upon which the demanded amount was worked out were not furnished to him. For want of the said particulars, it is pleaded that the petitioner was unable to show that he was not liable to pay the seinerage fees.

¶18

Having regard to the admitted fact that the petitioner was not furnished the above said details, the impugned action of the respondents in proceeding for recovery of the demanded amount by invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act amounts to arbitrary exercise of power.

¶19

Accordingly, the impugned proceedings dated 06.08.2001, 04.11.2001 as well as 12.06.2003 under which the 3^rd respondent was directed to invoke the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act are hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to furnish the particulars of the calculation upon which the demanded amount was worked out. On furnishing such details, the petitioner shall submit his explanation within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such particulars. Thereafter, it is open to the respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶21

___________ G. ROHINI, J

¶22

Date: 08.10.2010 KLP

D. Kaleshavali v. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Kaleshavali v. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology

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

K.Somanarsaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by the District

C. Savithri Devi, Vs The District Panchayat Officer

Alla Gruhalakshmi Vs The Commissioner of Appeals

Kadali Subba Rao, Vs The Assiatant Commissioner and E.O.

Ponugoti Sitaram Babu Vs The Sub Registrar

M.Lakshmi Devamma Vs The Tahsildar,Puttaparthi Mandal,Anantapur District