ADUSUMILLI VENKATESHWARA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common questions of law arise in all these Writ Petitions. Hence, they are all disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The petitioners in all these writ petitions are the contractors for various works floated by the Government and Local Bodies. Under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules') every person using minor mineral is required to pay the prescribed seigniorage fee on the mineral used and in default he is liable to pay penalty of five times the seigniorage fee. They arc required to use minor minerals like concrete, sand etc. Earlier, as per the then existing procedure, the seigniorage fee in respect of the minerals used by the contractors was being deducted by the Department from the bills of the respective contractors. But, however, the Government issued Memo No.49/B.n (2)/91-2, dated 4-4-1991 incorporating the following Clause: "The contractor should produce documentary evidence for having paid the seigniorage fee to the Government as envisaged in G.O.Ms. No. 243, Industries and Commerce, dated 8-5-1986 amending the Rule 26(2) of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. In the absence of production of such evidence the normal seigniorage fee together with 5 times penalty provided in the said Rule 'will be recovered from the Contractor's bills."Subsequently, it appears that representations were made by the Contractors' Organisations, and the Government, after considering the said representations, issued G.O.Ms. No.205, Transport, Roads and Buildings (B.III) Department, dated 8-10-1993 cancelling the instructions issued in Memo dated 4-4-1991 and reverting back to the earlier procedure as narrated above. While so, the Government reviewed the said policy and again issued G.O.Ms.No.6, Transport, Roads & Buildings (B.III) Department, dated 12-1-1996, cancelling G.O.Ms.No.205 dated 8-10-1993, and the same is assailed in these Writ Petitions.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that when the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.205 dated 8-10-1993 keeping in view the difficulties faced by the contractors and the Government Departments, it would not be appropriate for the Government to again cancel that G.O. and restore to the position as available in Memo No.49/B.II(2)/91-2 dated 44-1991, that it is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and that, therefore, the said G.O. is wholly illegal and arbitrary.