Partly allowed

M/s. Suvarna Bhoomi Developers (P) Ltd, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC26 Feb 2013WP/5760/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the court granted a conditional stay on a demand order for seigniorage and penalty levied against a mining leaseholder for alleged extra area excavation. The condition required depositing the actual seigniorage fee within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Conditional grant of stay on demand order if actual seigniorage fee of Rs.2,35,950/- is deposited within two weeks; despatch permits to be issued upon payment.

M/s. Suvarna Bhoomi Developers (P) Ltd, Vs The… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5760 of 2013

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner was granted mining lease to quarry Gravel over an extent of Ac.42.30 cents of land in various survey numbers of Vemagottipalem Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam, 4^th respondent herein issued a show cause notice dated 26.12.2012 alleging that the petitioner excavated earth from an area outside the land that was leased to it. The petitioner submitted explanation on 09.01.2013 denying the allegation. However, the 4^th respondent passed an order of demand on 11.02.2013 requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,35,950/- towards seigniorage fee and ten times penalty of Rs.23,59,500/-.

¶4

Aggrieved by the demand order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1^st respondent herein together with an application for stay. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent did not pass any orders on the application for stay and that in the meanwhile, the 4^th respondent is taking coercive steps to recover the amount.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology.

¶6

The petitioner has already availed the remedy of appeal, feeling aggrieved by the demand order passed by the 4^th respondent, requiring him to pay the seigniorage fee with ten times penalty. If the entire amount is recovered, even while the

¶7

appeal is pending, the very purpose of availing the remedy would be defeated. This Court is of the view that conditional stay can be granted.

¶8

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that in case, the petitioner deposits the actual amount of seigniorage fee i.e., Rs.2,35,950/-within a period of two (2) weeks from today, the order, dated 11.02.2013 passed by the 4^th respondent shall remain stayed. Such payment shall be subject to the outcome of the appeal. The petitioner shall be entitled to be issued despatch permits, as soon as it deposits the amount indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of.

¶10

_____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶11

Date: 26.02.2013 JSU

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.5760 of 2013

¶14

Date: 26.02.2013

¶15

JSU

M/s. Suvarna Bhoomi Developers (P) Ltd, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Suvarna Bhoomi Developers (P) Ltd, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aleti Rajaram Memorial Educational Society Vs The Govt of A.P.

G.Yellaiah, Vs The Secretary

Syed Shah Shakeel Ahmed Hussaini, Vs The A.P State Wakf Board rep.by its Chief Executive Officer

Guduru.Tulasi, Vs The State Board of Technical Education

Sri O. Malyadri Vs The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Allada Sarojini Devi, Vs The Additional Agent to the Government