The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRtf Of MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in nol disposing of the Revision Petition dt.23-12-2024 questioning the Demand Notice tto.gostQLlzot5, dt.08-02-2024 of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology and the action of the 3rd respondent proceedings to recover un(er Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unconstitutional and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice without jurisdiction and contrary to the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, '1957 and T S Minot: Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. IANO:1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiteo in supfort ottn" p"iition' ine Hign Court may q"^!.1:3t^*t" rfi tr.tn", proceeOing!-in pursuant to the Demand Notice No 909lQLl2O15' Z{6A-OZ]_ZOZa of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology anrj the action of "iry the 3rd respondent in proceedings to recovery under Revenue Recovery Act' 1864, pending disposal of the writ petition. IA NO :3OF 2025 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated !n the atfidavit filed in support of the p"iition,. ine^Hign Court may be p.leased to oermit the petitioner to iile Letter issued by Deputy Director of Mines and E;;;; ; ii'r.i".ziso/oLtNz,tzoz', dt.o5_12- 2024 and Letter in Form - I [.r"i'Ov Tansitoar in Lr No C/'1770t2024, dt06-01-2025' dt'06-01-2024 as iilJi6t;i Material Papers in WP No 1505 of 2025' pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such other order Cqunsel for the Petitioner: SMT' N' SHOBA Counsel for the Respondent No'1 to 4: GP FOR MINES & GEOLOGY Counsel for the Respondent No.S: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the followingl ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.1505 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioncr, learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geologr appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.S and with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner in brief, is that on being issued with demand notice dated O8.O2.2O24, it had availed tl're remedy of Revision under Rule 35A of Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules) by submitting application in Form J on

20.12.2024 by paying necessary fee under Itule 358 of the Rules; and that thc aforesaid Revision was sent by registered post.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that though it had fited Revision by sending the same by registered post, the same is not been disposed till date. 2 .\

4. Petitioner further conlends that while the aforesaid revision 1;referred by it in the month of Februar5, 2024 is pending consideration, the Sth respondent basing on a communi,:a1-ion received from the 3'd respondent dt. 05-12-2024 had initirrted action to recover the seigniorage fee and the penalty levied under the demand notice dated O8.O2.2024 undet the provisions ofTelangana Revenue Recovery Act, 18b4'

5. Pe t tioner further contends that on coming to k now of the action ir-ritiated by the 3'd resprlndent to recover the amounts as per the dcmand notice and the 5e respondent seeking to initiate action, i: had approached the concerned authorities and enquired about the pending revision upon whir:h it was informed that the said revision application sent by it through registereo post in the month of February, 2024 is no[ traceable and calle,l upon the petitioner to resubmit, which was; duly filed on 23.12.2024 and the same is pending consideration,

6. Petitioner further contends that not only the revision preferred by it in the month of February, 2O24 is not considered, even the revised application submitted by it on 23.12.202,4 has not been disposed as of date and in the meantimt: the 5fi respondent had initiated action to recover the J amount being claimed under the demand notice by initiating action under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for short 'the RR Act), and of the respondent authorities are allowed to proceed with the recovery under the provisions of RR Act, the revision preferred by the petitioner would become otiose and redundant and thus, seeks for a direction to the respondents to dispose of the revision in a time bound manner and to restrain the respondent authorities from taking further action pursuant to the Distrain order issued in Form I dated 06.01.2025 in the meantime 7 . Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geologr appearing on behalf of respondents on the other hand would submit that though the petitioner claims to have preferred a revision against the demand notice dated Oa.O2.2O24 on 2O.O2.2O24, the authorities_ are not in receipt of any such revision petition under Rule 35A of the Rules.

8. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that even gong by the documents as hled by the petitioner, the same would show that the revision petition having been sent to the concerncd Minister by registered post and not to the Governmen[ for it to be considered as having been validly filed. + g. LearneC Standing Counsel however does not displrte the fact of [he petitioner making payment of the fee prescribed under Ruie 35B of the Rules on 20 'O2 2024 anrl the petitioner also having submitted application once again oo 23 12'2024' 10. Learr ec1 Government Plcader would furLher submit that if this Court u ere to direct the respondent authorities to dispose of the aforesald revision in a time bound manner' the q'-ould abide by the directions of this Court' 1 1' Having regard to the submissions made as above and without erpressing any opinion on Lhe merits of the rnatter' lhis Court is of the view that since the petitioner aggrieved by the demand notice dated 08 02 2024 claims to have file<l a revision by subnritting application initially ort 20 'O2 2024 a coPY of authorities; again on " .t,:-:":: r:j::::;: which r^'as '"=t't'*i""a the vievr t'hat the respondent authorities' tr responclent should be directed to dispose of ttre aforesaid revision q,ithin a period of eight weeks from the date' of receipt of Court also of the view lhat Pending revision, if the sli' responden'' is allowed to to recover the amount belng ciaimed under the a coPY of the order' 12. llurther, this consid eration of the procet:c1 further -,I -=-.iag 5 demand notice by initiating proceeclings under RR Act' the same would make the revision proceedings infructuous' 13. In view of the above, this Court is also of the view that the 5s respondent authority is to be directed not to take any further precipitative action for recovery of the amount claimed under the demand notice till the disposal of the revision' 14. Subject to the atrove direction' the Writ Petition ls disposed of. No costs' Miscellaneous Petitions, if anY' pending in the Wri! Petition, bhall stand closed' SD/.A. ASSI SRINNASA REDDY T REG ISTRAR T \ ,TTRUE COPY" ECTTON OFFICER To,

2. J.

4. 5 6 7 B itEL1tiix'*l*#+:$*fr;1i.{gffi i1'" fifi,,,.i.,,8il$**a*+urr+*-*'mr'r'ihes'ia'ie'r B! ttr HIGH COURT DATED:05 t03t2O2S ORDER WP.No.150S of 2OZs ,@EEE*al ...-': iti: S .5' 2 i t|A, frfi -ro .* ED t '* a DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS U-5F 2)