IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.29239 AND 29240 OF 2014 BETWEEN P.Chandra Reddy and another AND ... PETITIONERS The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
Since both these writ petitions raise a similar grievance and the learned Government Pleader for Mines has already obtained instructions, these matters are heard and are being disposed of at the admission stage.
2. Petitioners in each of the writ petitions state that they were granted quarry lease for the road metal and building stone and that they were registered as dealers enabling them to deal with processing, storing and selling of road metal and building storage. It is also claimed that requisite registration under the A.P.Mineral Dealers’ Rules, 2000, was also issued to them and while initial period of dealer’s registration had expired, they sought for renewal.
3. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.29240 of 2014 that he was served with a demand notice, dated 19.03.2012, demanding him to pay the normal seigniorage fee of Rs.6,35,920/- together with five times penalty as the proof of payment of seigniorage fee with regard to the stock found on inspection, was not submitted. As against the said demand notice, the petitioner has already filed a revision application and the same is pending before respondent No.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 18.09.2014, the staff of respondent No.3 came to the petitioner’s stone crusher premises and highhandedly locked and seized the room of the stone crushing unit, where the electric motors are situated, and thereby, petitioner was disabled from running the unit.
3. The said action is questioned in this writ petition inter alia on the ground that no prior notice and no opportunity was given to the petitioner and also on the ground that as the petitioner has already entered into an agreement with M/s.Variegate Project (P) Ltd., for regular and continuous supply of different sizes of metal (Gravel), on account of the seizure of the stone crusher unit, she was compelled to default with the agreement.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.29239 of 2014 also complains of similar grievance where the petitioner was issued a demand notice dated 19.03.2012, demanding him to pay the normal seigniorage fee of Rs.20,75,622/- together with five times penalty and that the petitioner’s stone crushing unit was stated to have been examined by the staff of respondent No.3 and the room containing electrical equipment was closed, thereby disabling the petitioner from running the unit.
4. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the petitioners committed default in substantiating that the seigniorage fees on the said metal was paid by them. Copy of the show cause notices is placed before the court to substantiate that notices were given requiring the petitioners to submit documentary evidence on payment of seignorage fees on the detected quantities and the demand notices are based upon the non-
submission of any material in support of the payment of seignorage fee. The instructions of the learned Government Pleader show that the petitioners were given demand notices for normal seigniorage fee of Rs.20,75,622/- and Rs.6,35,920/- respectively together with five times penalty thereon.
5. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners have not received any such notices and if an opportunity is given, they will submit necessary proof of payment of seigniorage fee.
6. As mentioned above, the present writ petitions are filed aggrieved by the action of seizure of the units and hence, the said grievance only to that extent is considered in these writ petitions.
7. The seizure of the units was apparently proceeded with, without any prior proceedings, such as, notice or otherwise for the contemplated action. In any case, if the dues are outstanding against the respective petitioners, the respondents are at liberty to take such appropriate steps for recovery thereof, if no cause is shown by the petitioners against the show cause notices and the demand notices. However, the seizure of the units displaced the entire functioning of the units and, as such, I am not inclined to sustain the said impugned action.
8. Both these writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of with the following directions:
1. Respondents are directed to remove the seals and thereby enable the petitioners to run their respective crusher units, subject to the condition of petitioners depositing the normal seigniorage fee, as mentioned in the demand notices i.e., Rs.20,75,622/- and Rs.6,35,920/- respectively, and as soon as such amounts are deposited, the seals shall be opened by the respondents.
2. The petitioners are granted one more opportunity to substantiate that the seigniorage fee on the said road metal was paid either by them or by their agreement holders to whom they are making the supply by producing the necessary proof of mode of payments before the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Respondent No.3.
3. Respondent No.3 shall thereafter conduct a detailed enquiry and shall pass an appropriate order. The levying of the normal seigniorage fee on the detected quantities as well as the penalty shall depend upon the order that would be passed by respondent No.3.
4. Subject to passing of appropriate order, as directed above, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate steps for recovery of the amounts, if any found due and payable by the petitioners.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 13, 2014 Note:-
Furnish copy by two days.
{B/o}LMV