High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Demand Notice dated 14-1O-2O24 (served to the petitioner on 03-12-2024) vide No.236/QL/2016 issued by the 4th respondent directing the petitioner to pay normal seigniorage fee along with S times penalty an amount of Rs.30,05,30 ,962.361- in respect of quarry lease for building and road metal in the patta land situated at Sy. No.23 of Sirala Village, Bhainsa Mandal, Nirmal District, as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to law, in violation of principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 1g and 2,1 of the constitution of lndia and consequently set-aside the same lA NO: 1 OF 2O25 Petition unCe. ;(rction 151 CpC praying that in the circumst.rnces stated in the affidavit fired n *pport of the peiition, ine Higrr court mzry u" pr"r.LJ to suspend the operirlic I of the Demand Notice dated 14_1}_2t)2i lserved to the petitioner.on 03-1i'-,:2 )24) vide No.236/eL/2016 issued by the 4.th r.".ponouni in respect of quarry k:zrs : ror building and road metal in the patta land situated ai by. No.23 of Sirala VirLll)e Bhainsa Mandal, Nirmal District- counsel for the Petrti,>ner: sRr A. PRANEETH REPRESENTTNG FoR sRI. p LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Resp rndents: Gp FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the fr ,llowing: ORDER 7 ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition N o.93 of 2025 Heard Sri A.Praneeth, learned counsel representing Sri p.Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the record.

2. The 1st petitioner, represented by the 2"d petitioner herein by the present Writ Petition, has assailed the action of the 4th respondent_ authority in issuing demand notice No.236 leL/20t6, dt.14.70.2024, served on the petitioner, on 03.12.2024, directing them to pay normal seigniorage fee along with five tirnes penalty in respect of quarry lease for building and road metal granted in the patta land situated in Sy.No.23 of Sirala Village, Bhainsa Mandal, Njrmal District, as being illegal and arbitrary, with a consequential direction to set aside the same.

3. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the respondents by the impugned proceeding had demanded normal selgniorage fee along with five times penalty under Rutes 26(3)(2) and 26(2) of the Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966 (for short'the Rules); and that the said authority lacks jurisdiction to levy penalty, as in terms of provisions of the Rules, penalty can only be levied by the Court, and as such, impugned proceeding issued is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Rules. .'" 2 { I

4. In suotr decision of t he dt.t4.tI.)023, 26 of the Rule ,:; in W.P.No.8l,X Director of l'4ir e culpability cf thr (Developmen: ar ' rl of the aforesaid contention, reliance ir; pla ced on the ( ,rordinate Bench of this Court in W.p,Nc.;:5t94 of 2023 irerein this Court havinq regard. to the pr3r,r5i11n5 6f pgls "cllowing the order of the High Courl of .Andhra pradesh :f 2018 dt.30.09.2022, had hetd that thr,r Assistant or any other authority of the State cannot rjet ermine the person said to be in violation of the Mines a 1d Mineral rl Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short .the Act.) or the Rules or levy a pen,rll.y ,rnd it is only a Court of competent jurisdir:tion which can go into these ,11 Rules or any (rt-( : stions and levy penalties set out under Rrrle 26 of the provisrons of the Act or the Rules.

5. Per co,ttr-, respondent I\ cs,. learned Government pleader for Mrnes app::aring for to 4 would contend that while the [lul,:s under consideration )'/ ' . High court of Andhra pradesh arc not l)ari tnateria to Rules in forr:e r the State of Telangana, and as such, 1.he decision rendered by thr, - 3h Court of Andhra pradesh in W.p,No,g.i9i) of 2023 relying which o-: .. in W.p.No.25B94 ot 2023 has been passe,J by this Court, the respcn lrnts-authorities have filed an application, vide LA.NL.1 of 2024, seekrr g | , ,,rew of the a[oresaid order bringing out th,] cilference between the R r e under consideration before the High Court. ot, Andhra Pradesh and tl3 q _,3s as existing in the State of Telangana arrd as such, the petitioner r:a n r rt place reliance on the order of the High :lourt of 't { 3 Andhra Pradesh or the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.25B14 of

6. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the validity of Rule 26 of the Rules has been confirmed by Full Bench of this Court in L.Venkateswara Rao v/s. Singareni Coltieries Company Limited and as such, the authorities under the Act and the Rules are competent to levy penalty.

7. Learned Government Pleader would fufther submit that inasmuch as remedy of appeal/revision is provided under the Rules, the petitioner ought to have availed the aforesaid remedy, instead of assailing the impugned demand notice by approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. B. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

9. Though the petitioner had placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.25B14 of 2023, since, it is now informed to this Couft that the respondents-authorities having sought for review of the aforesaid order, vide Review IA.No.1 of 2024, the petitioner cannot claim of the said order having attained finality, for them to place reliance thereon I 1993 SCC Online AP 451 \ J 4 10' Insof,lr i s the reriance praced on the decision of the H gh court of Andhra Pradr:s r in W.p.No.g390 of 2018 dt.30.09.202.2 rs concerned, since, the ll., e in the State of Andhra pradesh are at vilr an:e with the Rules in fo -r r: 1 the State oi Telangana, the said Jr:cts;ion in the considerecl tt' , of this court wourd not advancc the ci,rse of the petitioner.

11. Furthe,r. .ls to be noted that a Coordinate Bench rtf ths Court by its order dt.3L. )r.2025 had ailowed the Review IA No.t of 2024 and recalled the .rdr t dt.14.11.2023 in W.p.No.25814 of 2023 --hr,s, the said order cannot be ;,:id to be in force any more.

12. Furthe-, t r r Coordinate Bench of this Court thereafte,r harl taken up the Writ Peti:i,rr, videW.p.No.Z5B14 of 2023 for hearing anr: by order dt.25.02.202l: t, r dismissed the said Writ petition, wheri:in it was held that the pow,l . levy penalty under Section 21(5) of th(r ,qct is proper and sourced f-on .he staiute itself. 13' This C,rrr in the aroresaid decision further herd trr;rt ,;ince, the power to lew pr: ,ilty is sourced through a statute itserf, the (:ortention of the petitioner tlra penar[y shal be levied onry under sectior .r1 cf the Act does not stan: re judicial scrutiny and thus, levy of pr,nalty by respondelts rs i^ ).:cordancc with law. ) , 5

14. As this Court by the aforesaid decision having held that not only the court that can revy penarty, but arso the authority under the statute can i levy penalty, the claim of the petitioner that the impugned order levying penalty by the 4h respondent as being without jurisdiction, in the considered view of this Court does not merit consideration.

15. since the petitioner have praced reriance on the decision of the High court of Andhra pradesh to support their contention and the said decision having been considered by a coordinate Bench of this court in its order dt.25.02.2025 in W.p.No.25814 of 2023, this Court is of the.view that the decision of the High court of Andhra pradesh cannot advance the case of the petitioner, more so, when it is not shown to this Court as to the order of this court not considering the provisions in correct perspective.

16. Further, the Coordinate Bench of this Court having specifically noted that the provisions under considerauon in the decision rendered by the High Court being at variance from the provisions in the State of Telangana, the said decision though has a persuasive value cannot advance the case of the petitioner. L7. Further, though it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the responden$-authorities having mechanically levied maximum penalty prescribed under the Rules, as it is contended on behalf of the \ 6 6 respondents tr-ri f inasmuch the Rules provide for of appeal/rev sion and as ,:ircumstances warrant levy of maximum pe|alty or not to whether tll€ involves disllt rrl question of fact, this Court is of the vievv that such disputed qu(l:;ti )r of fact cannot be gone into in ? Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of fhe Constitution of India and for the said :eason' the petitioner ha're :rl avail the remedies provided under the statute and the Rules.

18. 11 1s 5r:t ed position of law that there is a disputed cluerstion of fact and an alterna ive remedy is available, a Writ Petition unde r l'rticle 226 of the constil,Lti rt of India iS not maintainable (see Radha Krishna Industries v,'.s, State of Himachat Pradestf and Commissioner of Income-ta( "/s. Chhabil Dass Agarwah'

19. For ':tre aforesaid reasons, this Coutt is of the view that the present Writ Petitiorr r:; filed is not maintainable and the petitiiln{'rr should be relegated 1:c vail the remedy of appeal/revision as providr':d under the statute. 20 Gra.ll.ir =: liberfy as noted hereinabove, the Writ Petiticrn is disposed o6. 116 erflr:r a : lo costs. '202t scc ont in ':334 '12ota1 I scr: t;tl I I _ * ,-ir-----!Ftr.r!''''@ .'aFr.t 7

21. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner on being served with demand notice dt.14.10.2024 on 03.12.2024, having filed the Writ Petition on 02.0L.2025, this Court is of the view that the time spent in pursuing the present writ petition before this couft is to be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation, to enable the petitioner to approach the competent authority by filing revislon/appeal in terms of the Rules.

22. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. \ To, /TTRUE COPY// SD/-N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER retariat Buildings,

1. The Secretary (Mines), 3rd Floor, B.R. Ambedkar Hyderabad. The Director of N/lines and Geology, H. No.5-922' Flat Nos.203 and 2O4,2nd fioor, trrty Home Sarovar Plaza, Shapur Wadi, Adarsh Nagar, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Nizamabad Region, Nizamabad District. The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Niimal, Nirmal District' One CC to SRl. P LAKSHMA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies

7. KKS LS HIGH COURII DATED:29104,12025 ORDER WP.No.93 ol'i,.025 t-_ *- =::-.\ 1 rlE t f,i ( $o f4- G,..' J c o I t4q\ ,, ? ;025 $ l' , o +' l-;' it117.6.) :-;.)- -t;l/ DISPOSING T HE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT CO STS .aturl s i.\' ,(' 71'r'l €