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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS stating the action of the Respondent No.1 in not disposing the revision application d1.28.O5.2024 filed by the Writ Petitioner and not issuing the temporary permits by the Respondent No.3 and 4 to transport the minerals viz., metal and gravel outside the development site held by the Petitioner, pending revision application before Respondent No.1 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.4 to issue the temporary permits to the Petitioner to carry out the quarry operations, pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GOURIDEVI KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following: ORDER 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2687 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geologz appearing for respondent Nos. I to 4, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, thc case o[ the petitioner, in brief, is that aggrieved by the demand notice, dt.O9.0 7.2024, issued by the 4e respondent imposing l0 times penalty, in addition to claiming normal seigniorage fee, petitioner had preferred Revision in terms of Rule 35A of the Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short the RulesJ, and the said Revision is pending consideration as of date.

3. Petitioner further contends that pcnding consideration of the said revision, it had paid normal seigniorage fee as demanded by the respondents under the demand notice, dt.Og.07.2024, on 07.11.2024, in a sum of Rs. 17,02,675/-; that subsequent to the payment of normal seigniorage fee under the demand notice, petitioner, through its agent appointed to transport the minor mineral excavated while leveiing the Iand, had appiied for grant of temporary d ispatch / transit permits on \ \ _ 2

11.11.2024; that in spite of submitting/ making applications, the same are not being granted; and that on account of dispatch permit not being issued, petitioner is unable to move the rough stone from its site, which action of the respondent it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand would submit that though the petitioner had paid 100% of the normal seigniorage fee, since, the revision preferred by it against demand of seigniorage fee and imposition of penalty is pending consideration, the authorities did not issue temporary dispatch/ transit permit.

5. Learned Government Pleader would further contend that even the application made on 11.11.2024 is not in the name of the petitioner and the said application was submitted in the name of the agent appointed by the petitioner, thus, it cannot be considered.

6. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner aggrieved by the demand notice, dt.Og.O7 .2024, had filed a revision to the Government as provide d under Rule 35A of the Rules, and the said revision is pending consideration as of date.

8. It is also an admitted fact that pending consideration of the Revision, t}-re 6ietitioner had paid lOOo/o of the seigniorage fee on I 3 O7.I7.2O24, and thus, the oniy the amount which is in dispute is 10 times penalty levied on the petitioner under the demand notice dt.og.o7.2024. I I

9. Since, in the facts of the present case, the petitioner having paid 100% of the normal seigniorage fee demanded under the notice dt.Og .O7 .2024, and the revision preferred by the petitioner on

28.09 .2024 in relation to imposition of I O times penalty is under consideration, this Court is of the view that while directing the respondents-authorities to dispose of the aforesaid revision within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy, of this order, are to be directed to issue temporary dispatch/ transit permit to the petitioner on submitting a fresh application by showing the payment of normal seigniorage fee demanded under notice dt.Og.O7.2024 for issuance of such temporary dispatch / transit permit. Upon petitioner making/ submitting the application, the respondents are directed issue temporary dispatch permits. It is made clear that the petitioner shall make the payment of scigniorage fee in respect of the mineral cieared under the dispatch permits issued hereafter.

10. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. t I I I I, \ To 4

11. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. //TRUE COPY' ASSIS SD/.N. SRIHARI NT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. The Secretary-Cum- Revision Authority, (Mines and Geology) lndustries and Commerce (Mines-l) Department, Government of Telangana, Secretariat buildings, Tank Blind, Hyderabad, Telangana, State of Telangana.

2. The Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Telangana, 2nd Floor, lVy Homes Sarovar Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana.

3. The Dy. Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, Telangana. 4. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, 5. One CC to SRI GOURIDEVI KRISHNAIAH, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY, High Court for the State of Telangana. Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies PSK CJP t) 't & HIGH COURT DATED:31 10112025 ORDER WP.No.2687 of 2025 t ttE /, !, 03 APR 20[ i ir' 'i., 'tl ;) t)E.SpaTC DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ l.\ ( W /