Facts
In this case, the Petitioner was granted a mining lease for road metal and building stone for a period of 10 years. He was doing the mining procedures according to the rules and instructions issued by the Respondent authorities from time to time. Respondent no. 3 issued a show-cause notice to the Petitioner calling for an explanation as to why actions should not be taken for the rejection of the first renewal quarry lease application. The Petitioner submitted the explanation and upon considering the same the Respondent no. 3 issued the demand notice to the petitioner directing to pay a sum of Rs. 83,12,130 towards the normal seigniorage fees, a penalty of Rs. 8,17,23,150, DMF of Rs. 24,93,639 and the merit of Rs. 1,66,243, for unauthorized excavation and transportation of road metal and building stone without obtaining the dispatch permits and in contravention of A.P.M.M.C. Rules, 1966. Aggrieved the orders of Respondent no. 3 the petitioner filed a writ petition before the court seeking appropriate directions against the Respondent.
Arguments Advanced
The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted before the court that the demand notice issued by Respondent no. 3 was in contravention to the explanation issued by the Petitioner. The petitioner representation was not taken into consideration before passing the demand notice demanding the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 83,12,130 towards the normal seigniorage fees, the penalty of Rs. 8,17,23,150, DMF of Rs. 24,93,639 and the merit of Rs. 1,66,243, for unauthorized excavation and transportation of road metal and building stone without obtaining the dispatch permits.
The learned Government pleader for mines and geology submitted before the court that the order was passed by Respondent no. 3 by following the procedure, by affording the opportunity to the Petitioner to submit an explanation to his show-cause notice and after considering the explanation only.
Court’s Analysis
The court after hearing the submissions of both the counsels is of the opinion that Respondent no. 3 has followed the due procedure for the passing of the demand notice and the opportunity was also given to the petitioner to give an explanation regarding the matter. However, the Petitioner’s counsel insisted on the point that the explanation provided by him was not regarded properly. The court in regard is of the opinion that according to article 226 the court is not permitted to entertain the disputed question of facts. Rule 35(a) of the APMMC Rules, the petitioner and has a remedy to file revision application against the demand notice issued by Respondent no. 3 and without exhausting the said remedy, this writ petition is filed.
Court’s Decision
The Court permitted the Petitioner to approach respondent no. 1 by filing a revision petition under Rule 35(a) of APMMC rules to ventilate his grievance, within the period of 4 weeks from today. Respondent no. 1 (State of Andhra Pradesh) should consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving the petitioner the opportunity to put forward his case within a reasonable period of three months. Any applications pending shall stand closed and there are no orders as to costs.
Click here to view the judgment
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
