G.I. ESTATES Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails the dismissal of its revision under Memo dated 02.12.2015, whereby the Government of Andhra Pradesh confirmed the Demand Notice dated 06.07.2015 issued by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, calling upon it to pay Rs.5,19,520/ - towards seigniorage fee and Rs.51,95,200/ - towards penalty, aggregating to Rs.57,14,720/ -.

(2.) The petitioner was granted, by way of transfer, an existing quarry lease for black granite over an extent of 1,000 hectares in Sy.No.160/1 of Gollapalem Village, Phirangipuram Mandal, Guntur District, under proceedings dated 12.06.2008 of the Director of Mines and Geology, Andhra Pradesh. This lease was originally granted to M/s. Amman Granites but upon its request it was transferred to the petitioner. A fresh lease deed was then executed on 29.07.2008. This transferred lease is valid for the unexpired period of the initial lease, i.e., upto 14.05.2024.

(3.) While so, Show -cause Notice dated 15.06.2015 was issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, adverting to the inspection said to have been made of the leased area on 11.11.2014 and calling upon the petitioner to show - cause as to why action should not be initiated against it for collection of normal seigniorage fee along with ten times penalty for having excavated and transported 314.24 cubic metres of black granite from outside the leased area. The petitioner submitted its reply dated 27.06.2015 stating that quarrying was being done systematically duly obtaining dispatch permits from time to time and that, as per the field conditions, the working pits were uneven in the leased area which was covered with weathered boulders. The petitioner claimed that its quarry manager and labour had measured and marked the lease boundaries as per the approved mining plan but they were lost and the technical staff had excavated outside the leased area without having any intention to do so. The petitioner therefore requested dropping of further action stating that it was ready to pay the normal seigniorage fee. Consequent to this, the subject demand notice was issued holding the petitioner's reply unsatisfactory and untenable under the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for brevity, the Rules of 1966). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision under Rule 35 -A of the Rules of 1966. By the impugned Memo dated 02.12.2015, the revision was dismissed.