IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.36176 of 2014 BETWEEN B.Nagaswamy and another AND ... PETITIONERS The State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioners question the certificate issued by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology under Section 3(1) of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (for brevity, “the Act”). The said certificate is forwarded to the Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool for recovery of Rs.1,28,21,248/- from the petitioners. The aforesaid demand is preceded by a show cause notice to the petitioners, dated 12.12.2013, and after considering their explanation, a demand notice was issued on 22.03.2014 confirming the amount to be recovered from the petitioners for illegal extraction of iron ore, which was quantified at 7,285 metric tons.
3. Petitioners have not questioned the said demand notice either by preferring an appeal or revision under Rule 35 or 35A of the Mines and Minerals Rules nor before this court. The present writ petition is, however, directed against the certificate of recovery issued by the Deputy Director and addressed to the Collector.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners state that a case in F.I.R.No.119 of 2014 was registered against them on 02.07.2014 at Veldurthy Police Station on the complaint of respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners state that while the said crime is registered for the offences alleged under Sections 379 and 411 IPC r/w section 21(4) of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, unless the guilt of the petitioners is established therein after trial, they have to be treated as innocents and no recovery proceedings nor a demand can be enforced against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners also states that the impugned demand is wholly fictitious and unless the petitioners are found guilty of committing theft as per the said complaint, no such conclusion of their liability to pay the amount can be raised against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners places strong reliance upon decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Chandeswar
[1]
Prasad Singh v. Sub Divisional Land Reforms Officers , particularly, paragraphs 54 and 56 of the said decision.
5. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and, in my view, without challenging the demand notice, petitioners cannot question the recovery certificate issued under the Act. In the decision aforesaid, it is evident from para 56 itself that the learned Judge was dealing with the Rules framed by the State Government and in that context came to find that in the absence of the Rules framed under the Act, laying down the procedure for ascertaining the value of mineral extracted, the determination of value and its enforcement is not permissible. In the present case, however, the show cause notice was issued on the alleged violation of Section 21 of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the demand notice issued pursuant to the said show cause notice remained unchallenged. I am, therefore, unable to see any substance in the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners.
Writ petition is clearly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 27, 2014 LMV
[1] AIR 1986 CALCUTTA 1(1)