Allowed

M/s Dilip Buildcon Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Nov 2023WP/27257/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking to set aside a seigniorage fee demand notice and allow mineral dealer registration applications, the High Court observed an error appearing on the face of an impugned revisional order. It set aside that order for remittal for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 03.12.2022 set aside; matter remanded to 1st respondent for fresh adjudication within 4 weeks; Writ Petition allowed.

M/s Dilip Buildcon Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^{NO:27257 OF 2023}

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s Dilip Buildcon^{Ltd, Rep by its AuthorisedSignatoryMr Alok Singh' Oftice} liirr"i.'u"-sl tnsioe^{covinJ'r.rlrayan Singhga"te,Chunabhatti,Kolar Road'} Bhopal, MadhYa^{Pradesh-462016} ...PETITIONER

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of^{Telangana,Rep by its Principal Secretary to Govt(Mines and} Ceof oovt. Secretari-at^{Buildings, Hyderabad'Telangana}

¶12

z. me Dir6Ctor of^{Mines and Geology, Hyderabad'}

¶13

rnu AiJi.trnt^{Director of Minesa-iidGbology, Nirmal District'} 4 The Deputy OirectorlUiei'JnO^{Ceotogy,1:'7-_700, Shanthi Naga(Postal} ' CoL"vfS,iuedari-Hanumakonda,Waiangal-506002 ...RESpoNDENT'

¶14

Petition under^{Article226 of the constitution of lndiapraying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court maybe} pleasedtoissueanappropriateWrit'orderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthe natureofWritofMandamusdeclaringthata)theactionofthe3rdRespondentin issuingaNoticeNo.24TNandEtzolgdatedl.3.12.2022asillegal,arbitrary, violativeofPrinciplesofNaturalJusticeandUnconstitutionalb)Setasidethe NoticeNo.24TNandE/2019dated13-12-2022andc)Conseqtrentiallyallowthe videFile.No3T32rMD-1/KNR/2023,3733/MD-1/KNR/2023'37341MD1/KNR/2023 dated 09.08^2023.

¶15

IA NO: 1 OF²⁰²³

¶16

-PetitionUnderSectionl5lCPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition'theHighCourtmaybepleasedtostay the Notice No^{247N and Et2O19 dated 13' 12' 2012 issuedby the 3rd}

¶17

-7

¶18

RespondentandconsequentiallyallowtheapplicationsforMineraldealer registration^{dated09. 08 2023 pending beforethe 4th Respondent}

¶19

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRI LAKSHMIKANTHREDDYDESAI} Cornr"f^{for the Respondents: GP FOR MINESAND GEOLOGY}

¶20

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶21

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BIIEEMAPAKA

¶23

WRIT PETITION No. 27257 OF 2023

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Petitioner company is incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Acl, 1956 and is a leading infrastructure company. It engaged in construction of roads and highways, special bridges, dams, canals, multi village water supply schemes, irrigation and urban developmcnt, mines, tunnels, etcetera.

¶26

Petitioner company was awarded project uide S.E.'s agreement No. 61 12O13-14, dated 26.O2.2014 which was commenced on 11.03.2O14 and completcd on 1O.O3.2016. The case of petitioner is that it obtained quarry lease permission and permits for excavation of road metal / building stone for execution of project and paid seigniorage fee, bu[ without considering the same, the 3rd respondent issued notice dated 16.09.2019 against petitioner company demanding to pay Rs.27,63,25,530/ -, against which, Revision was prelerred before the 1st respondent. The said Revision was disposed as 'upheld' on 03.12.2022. Despite the same, the lsr respondent issued proceedings uide notice dated. 13.12.2O22 which arc impugned

¶27

¶28

¶29

in rhis Writ Petition demanding it to pay the above-said arnount. According to petitioner, thc said notice is illegal and in violation ol thc pror,isions of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.

¶30

While the ll-rings stood thus, petitioner cornpany nas awarded another project on 15.72.2022 Lo be read with amended LOA daLed 23.O2.2O23 by NHAI for construction ol four laning of Karimnagar-Warangal Section of NH-563 of approximately 68.015 Kms. in the State of Telangana as a part ol Prestigious Bharthmata Pariyojana. Petitioner company incorporatcd a Special Purpose Vehicle solely for the purpose of implementing the project namely M/s Karimnagar-Warangal Highr,r,ays Limited. The project has to be completed within 730 da1's from the appointed date i.e. 18.07.2023 by la.O7.2025.

¶31

In this connection, Applications dated 09.O8.2023 u'crr-- made lor mineral dealer registration for processing / storing / trzrding of stone & metal in the unit located at different Survey Numbers of Vallabhpu Village, Thummanapally Village, Etkathurthl' Mandal, Huzurabad Mandal, Chejerla and Manakondur of Karimangar District to initiate their new project. Evcn after lapse of 30 days, as stipulated in the statute, no rcsponse has been received by petitioner in this connection tiil date. On cnquiries,^petitioner was informed orally that the said

¶32

--------=v

¶33

¶34

Applications are not being allowed since the dues of seigniorage fee have not been cleared. Resultantly, there wiil be delay in execu[ing the above-said [ime-bound project which is o[ public importance. Hence, petitioner seeks to set aside the notice dated 13.12.2022 and consequently, consider and allow the Applications dated 09.08.2023.

¶35

In the counter-affidavit, the 3.d respondent Assistant Director of Mines & Geology stated that earlier petitioner was awarded work of construction of rehabilitation and upgradation of existing NH-222 from K.M. 615.OOO to KM. 668.600 (Kalyan Nirmal Section) to two-lane with paved shoulder under National Highway Development Project-lV through an Engineering Procurement and construction basis (EPCI uide agreement dated 26.02.2014 and the same was completed in 2016. The Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Karimnagar^(RV&EO) uide letters dated O4.01.2018 and 14.O2.2O18 obtained information from Str(R&B) NH-Circle, Karimnagar uide letter dated 20.O3.2Ola on utilization of miner mineral quantities in the above-said project which revealed that petitioner utilized earth quantity 6,a7,985 cubic meters and stone & metal quantity 5,75,361 cubic meters. The RV&trO addressed the Executive Engineer (R&B), Perkit to

.ffi

. .*
<br>

inform rvhcther seigniorage charges rvere deducted or not in the above sullcct road work from the contractor's bills. The Executive [ingineer informed that no seigniorage charges were deduc[ed. Therefore, RV&,EO addressed petitioner to submit documentarv evidence as per Rule 26(3xii) of Telangana Slate Minor Mincral Concession Rules, 1966, but in vain. Hence, the RV&trO dirccted thc 3.d respondent to take necessary action for realization of normal seigniorage fee of Rs.4,60,54,255/ - along r,r,ith penaltr'. Pursuant thereto, the 3.d respondent issued notice dtaed 12.O3 .2O 19 to petitioner to furnish documentary evidence, as per Rule 26(3)(ii) but petitioner failed to either reply or to furnish documentary evidence, hence, demand was raised for paymerrt of Rs.4,60,54,255/- towards normal seigniorage fee and five times penalty of Rs.23,02,7 I,275 I - totalling to Rs.27,63,25,53O/ - for consumed quantities of rninor mineral, uide demand notice dated 16.O9.2019. Aggrieved thereby, petitioncr lilcd Rcvision before the l^st respondent.

¶40

lt is further slated that after issue of demand notice, petitioner submitted documentary evidence for the consumed quantities of building stone / road metal and gravel / morrum for execution of the above project and submitted that after through verihcation of the oflice records of the 3.d

¶41

-_,__=7

¶42

¶43

respondenL, petitioner obtained regular and temporary permits for building stone and road metai from various quarry leases and survey numbers for a quantity of 6,58,9O0 M3 (before 26.09.2015 revised S. fee quantiq 420792 M3 @ 501- per M3 and after 26.09.2015 revised S. fee quantit5r 238108 M3 @ 75/per M3) by advance payment of required seigniorge fee of Rs.4,33,88,800/ - and gravel /earth /morram from various survey numbers for a quantity of 4 ,39 ,176 M3^(before 26.09.2015 revised S. fee quantity: 2758O8 M3 @ 221- per M3 and after 26.09.2015 revised S. fee quantity 163308 M3 @ 30l' per M3 by advance payment of required S. fee of Rs. 1,10,79,008/- totaling Rs.5,44,67,8O8/- from the 3'd respondent-

¶44

The 1sr respondent conducted^personal hearing on 3O.O7.2O22 and observed that as^per the Executive^trngineer, R&8, NHAI Division, Perkit, Nizamabad District, seigniorage charges for minor mineral mentioned in the demand notice^was not deducted from the bills of petitioner, hence, the revisionial authority 'upheld the revision' uide memo dated 03.12.2022. As per the said order, the 3'd respondent issued the impugned notice. It is also stated that the petitioner [rled three Apptications for grant of mineral dealer registration for

I ,I I I I

:-@

processing / storing / trading of stone & metal at different survey numbcrs and places in Karimnagar and Hanamkonda districts for a penod of fivc years through on-Iine portai, on receipt of s'hich, the 4tt, respondent forwarded the same to the respective Assistant Directors of Mines and Geolory to inspect the applied areas ernd submit report for grant of rnineral dealer licence as per Rulc 5(2) of Telangana State Mineral Dealer Rules, 2000. Further, as pcr the orders of the 4e respondent, the Assistant Dircctor oI Mines & Geolory, Karimnagar furnished reporl on the abor.e said two Applications to the^4th respondent uide lcttcr dated 1 1.O9.2O23 stating that demand notice is pcnding against petitioner uide notice dated 16.O9.2019 issued b1'the 3'd respondent.

¶50

¶51

Heard lcarned counsel for petitioner Sri Lakshmikanth Desai and learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geologu.

¶52

Learned counsel for petitioner draws

¶53

attention ol this Court to the order dated 03.12.2022 of the Revisional Authorit]' n,herein, in^paragraph 4, it is stated that a personal hearing '"r,as conducted on 30.07.2022 and alter examining the relcvant made available, it^was noticed that as per the Executive Engineer, Perkit, seigniorage charges for the

t I

=:v

minor mineral mentioned in the demand notice was not cieducted from the bills of petitioner. Petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence even after acknowledging the notice of the AD M&G, Nirmal, hence it is decided to 'uphold the reuision'. The said order shocks the conscience of this Court. If petitioner failed to submit the relevant documentary evidence and as per Executive Engineer, Perkit, seigniorage charges for the minor mineral mentioned in the demand notice were not deducted from the bills of petitioner, ttre Revision preferred by petitioner ought to have been rejected, instead, the Revisional Authority upheld the Revision which indicates total nonapplication of mind on the part of the said Authority. This Court takes serious exception to the manner in which the order dated 03. 12.2022 was passed.

¶58

At this juncture, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader request that matter may be remanded to the 1st respondent for adjudication afresh. 6. [n vieu, of the above request and also in view of the error apparent on the face of the order dated 03.12.2022, this Court is of the view that the Revision preferred by petitioner requires fresh adj udication.

rG
.

.:-:

7 . Tl-re order dated 03.^{12.2022 is accordingly set aside'} The matter is remancled to thc^{I't respondentfor adjudication} afresh. Needless to say that^{thc 1'r respondent shall consider} the material before it^{and pass appropriateordersduly} observing th<: principlcs^{of naturaljusticc within a period of four} weeks from the date ol^{receiptol:r copy of this order}

¶65

The Writ Petition is accordingly,^{allowed. No costs.}

¶66

g . Conseqr-rcn tly, the rniscellaneous/Applications,^if

¶67

any shall stand closed I

¶68

//TRUE COPY//

¶69

sD/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMFA ASSISTANT REGIS'RAR [[r/

¶70

¶71

SECTION OFFICER

¶72

" 1. The Principal Secretary^{to Govt(Minesand Geology), secretariatBuildings,} Hvderabad. Telanqana.

¶73

T6e Director of Miies^{and Geology. Hyderabad}

¶74

fne Assistant Director^{of Mines aridGeology, Nirmal District'} ; ih; D;;ri; tjirector Mines and^{Geolosv' 1-'7- 70o, ShanthiNaga(Postal} Coionyi SJbedari-^{Hanumakonda, \ryarangal- 506002}

¶75

o;;ic 6sCl LAKSHMIKANTH^{REDD'DESAI, Advocate to.PU9]} 6. i; cctto cp roR MINES^{AND GEoLoGY, High court for the State of} Telangana, at HYderabad [OUT]

¶76

Two CD Copies

PSK LS

",-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1611112023

ORDER

WP.No.27257 ot 2023

rtr E STATe
o(.) 2 3 N0\l 2023 o
*
I t) F.s prt c .c

¶84

ALLOWING THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶85

s *

M/s Dilip Buildcon Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Dilip Buildcon Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

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

M/s. Murali Manpower Agencies Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

Natuva Kavitha Vs The State of Telangana

United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs G.Sandhya

Saraswathi Bai, Vs Apcpdcl

Lekcon Infrastructure Private Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Daka Srinivasula Reddy Vs The State of Telangana