Allowed

M/s. Progressive Constructions Company, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC28 Oct 2022WP/22013/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of a demand notice regarding seigniorage fees. Relying on prior decisions, the Court held the notice illegal and contrary to rules, setting it aside with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Demand notice No. 2096/M3/1998, dt. 15-03-2007 set aside; writ petition allowed without costs.

M/s. Progressive Constructions Company, Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAB,AD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 22013 OF 2007

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Progressive Constructions Company, Rep by its Nilanaging Partner, Sri A.Vijaya Kumar, S/o. A. Radhakrishna Rao, Age 40 years, # 6-3-841174,82, F1 , Ameerpet

¶10

...PETTTtONER(

¶11

AND

¶12

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Director of [Vlines and Geology, Bth Floor, BRKR Building, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Deputy Director of Arlinesand Geology, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Regonda Village and mandal, Warangal District, rep. by its president.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or writ one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for records in proceedings in demand Notice No. 2096/M3/1998, dt. 15-3-2007 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of principles of natura^justice and contrary of AP Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966

¶18

l.A. NO: 'l OF 2007^(WPMP. NO :28524 OF²⁰⁰⁷⁾

¶19

Petition under Section 15'l CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to} suspend the^proceedings in demand Notice^{No. 2096/M3/1998, dt. 15-3-2007} pending disposal of the above writ petition and^pass

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. N SHOBA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR^{MINES AND GEOLOGY}

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER.

¶23

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN

¶24

AND

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.22O13 of 2OO7

¶27

ORDER: eer the Hon'ble the Clief Justce Llial llhugan)

¶28

Heard Ms. N.Shoba, learned counsel lor the petitioner and Mr. H.Venugopal, learned Government Pleader for Mrnes & Geolory, Industries and Commerce Department appearing for the respondents.

¶29

This writ petition has been filed seeking the following re lie fs:

¶30

"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or writ one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for records in proceedings in Demand Notice No.20961M311998, dt. 15-03-2007 and quash the same as arbitrary, iilegal in violation of principles of natura.l^justice arld contrary to A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and^pass such other order or orders as this Hon'bie Court deems fit and proper in the interests ofjustice.

¶31

It is also prayed that this Hontrle^{Court may be} pleased to suspend the proceedings in Demand Notice No.2O96lM3/ 1998, dt.15-03-2007^pending disposal^of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court deems flt and proper in circumstartces of the case."

¶32

¶33

¶34

It is submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition IS squarely covered by ihe juulgrnent and order dated 21.09.2022 passed by this Court in W.A.No.33 ol 2OO7 and batch and W.P.No.24997 of 2OOl and batch. relevaxt portion of which is extracted hereunder:

¶35

"4. I.earned Single Judge by the comm<.rn order dated 20.O9.2006 allowed the writ petitions in respect of which the writ appeals have been hled and held as follows:

¶36

"150. As can bc seen from rhe respective stands taken by the parties, the conrroversy boils dorvn to the modc of charging and further crJmputariolt thereof. It is necdless to sav that whcthet. the charging provision and computation provision are at one place or not, they have to be constituted as one integrated provision, It is needless to say that thc parties are bound by thc terms and conditions specified in the lease deeds and it is necdless to sav thaL ev( n the k ase decds lo bc in accordarrr.c wrth the rulcs govcrning the ficld. Strong reliance was placcd in G.O.Ms.No.2l7 and the changes introduced in rhc schedules in pursuance thcreof.

¶37

I 51. Learned counsel for the petitioners oontended that this will not alter the siruation and the learned Ciovernment Pleader for lndustries and Commcrce contended otherwise.

¶38

Strong reliancc u,as pl:rced on thc Technjcal Studv Report on volumctric and Tonnage Variation due to crushing of stones and bouldcrs. While charging and computing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents are bound to f(,llo*' the provisions of the Act and t}le Rules made thereunder and it is needless to say that the Schedules under Rule 1O of t}le Rules also may have to be followed as amended by G.O.Ms.No.217, dated 29.O9.2OO4 referred to supra.

¶39

l13. The parties are not at controversy or in variation as far as this fundamental principle is concemed, but how to calculate and how to compute and rvhere the same should begin and end, these aspects appear to be the controversial area whereunder the stand of the Government is that t.!' improper calculation or miscalculation ttre petitioneri are trying to escape their liability and on the contrary the petitioners are taking a stand that they are bound bl the charging provision and the rates as specified in

¶40

¶41

the schedules and nothing more and nothing beyondIt is needless to say that while intcrpreting a charging provision or a computation provision normally the same to be strictly const.ued since it would be fastcning the liability and in thc cvent of doubt, the State Government is always at liberty to bring in suitable amendments for the relevant rules.

¶42

On a careful scrutiny of G.O.Ms.No.217 referred to supra and also the Rules governing the field, as far as its position is concerned, this Court is satisfied that except for certain variations introduced as far as the basic charging and computation are conce.ned, there is no substantial changc or variation. Though the decisions of the Apex Court referred to supra and also of the Division Bench specified above, are delivered in slightly different contexts, the principle laid down in substance is applicable to the present batch of writ petitions.

¶43

It is made clear that the respondcnts arc bound to charge and compute in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rhe Rules governing the field and no doubt the petitioncrs arc bound by thc terms and conditions of thc respective leases. ln any event, the arithmetical or mathematical calculations or the other details worked out by the respondents that too without notice to the arlected parties may not be of much relevance in deciding the present batch of writ petitions.

¶44

Hence, in the light of the above clarification that the parties to these wril petitions are bound to follow the provisions of thc Act, thc Rules governing the field relating to the charging and computation of the amounts in controversy, and since there cannot be any deviation therefrom, the writ petitioners are bound to succeed and accordingly, the writ petitions are hereby allowed to the extent iodicated abovc. No order as to costs.

¶45

Before parting these cases, it is made clear that the State Government is at liberty to take appropriate steps to make suitable amendments to the concerned Rules, if it is so advised.'

¶46

?hus, we find that learned Single Judge while interfering with the action of the authorities, however, clarified that the authorities are bound under the law to charge and compute seigniorage fee in accordarrce with law. But, while doing so, the lessees are required to be put on notice. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge.

¶47

¶48

We see no inlirmity in the vierv taken by the lea-rned Single Judge to warrant interference in the writ appeals. As a matter of fact, the appellate Court vide the order dated 19.01.2007 while admitting W.A.No.33 of 2OO7 had directed that the appellants (State) and its authorities in the Mines and Geologr Department would be entitled to collect seigniorage fee strictly in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.

¶49

In the course of hearing, our attention has been drawn to G.O.Ms.irlo. 18, dated 3 1.03.2022, issued by Industries :rnd Commerce (Mines.I) Department, Governrnent of Telangala. As per the said Government Order, certairr amendments have been made to Schedule I and Schcdule III of Rulc 1O of the now Telangana Minor N{incral Concessior-r Rules, 1966, which is the successol' Rules of the previous Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, exercising powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, i957. Serial No. 1 of amended Schedule I dea.ls with rates of seigniorage fee for minor minerals like building stone, rough stone/boulders, road metal, ballast and malufactured sand (m-sa.rtd), which is Rs.6S per rnetric tonne.

¶50

On tl'rorough consideration of the matter, we do not find any good reason to interfere or dislodge the findings written by the learned Single Judge as clarified above.

¶51

9, Consequently, the writ appeals are dismissed whiie the writ petitions are allowed in terrns of the aforesaid decision of the learned Singie Judge.,,

¶52