M/s Vengamamba Stone Crusher, Eleswaram, East Godavari District v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Unless a proper survey was conducted after giving reasonable opportunity to the lease holder making a claim of additional seigniorage fee without giving opportunity and without considering the objections if any submitted is illegal and arbitrary. Having themselves come to a conclusion that it may not be reasonable to say lessee has encroached outside the leased area and therefore I am not liable to pay any penalty. Apart from the same, the 1st respondent has also not considered several other contentions raised by us. We have also brought to the notice of the 1st respondent about the orders passed by the 3rd in some other matter vide proceedings number 38987/R2-1/05, dated 9-1-2006 setting aside the orders of the ADMG dated 5-1-2006 advising to revise the demand after deducting the waste material not fit for usage of road metal and in the said order it is stated that the percentage of waste varies from 33.6% to 36.2%, whereas they have not applied the said principle in our matter.

If all these aspects were taken into is no excess quantity of metal consideration excavated by us and we are not liable to pay any amount. From the observation made in the impugned order dated 29-8-2006 itself it is clear that the allegations made against us are incorrect and the authorities have not applied their in a routine mind and passed orders mechanically manner. “ respondent himself The learned Single Judge did not issue formal notice to the respondents and dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage by recording the following reasons: conducted the petitioner was alleged “As seen from the order passed by the third to have respondent, committed two contraventions, namely, that she removed road metal over and above permitted quantity and that she removed the mineral from leased area as well as outside the lease area. She submitted her explanation on 17.05.2006 alleging that the area was leased out to one Chinnaiah and Mahankali Ravindra, who quarry operations for fifteen years and that for quarry operations in the land, which was initially leased out to those persons, she cannot be held responsible.

As seen from the order passed by the third respondent, in response to report called for, the fourth respondent submitted a report on 13.06.2006 to the effect that Chinnaiah and Ravindra obtained permits transporting road metal measuring 4,000 cums and 2,100 cums respectively. When they only quarried the said quantity and after expiry of lease of these two persons, if any extra mineral is removed from the land, petitioner alone is responsible for removing the road metal from outside the leased area. The first respondent considered this aspect of the matter and thought it fit to waive the penalty while directing the petitioner to pay the normal seigniorage fee. This only shows that the petitioner did not even produce any material that for the road metal, she removed from the leased area she paid the seigniorage fee as per the Rules. inference can always be drawn In any view, the finding recorded against the petitioner is a question of fact and therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere in the matter.

The first respondent considered all aspects of the matter while disposing of the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The same does not call for any interference. dismissed. No costs.” the writ petition Therefore, We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In our opinion, order dated 20.06.2006 passed by respondent No.3 is vitiated due to patent violation of the rules of natural justice and the revisional authority and the learned Single Judge committed serious error by rejecting the appellant’s prayer for quashing the levy of seigniorage fee and ten times penalty. A conjoint reading of show cause notice dated 04.04.2006 and reply dated 17.05.2006 submitted by the appellant shows that the latter had not only categorically denied the allegation of unauthorized quarrying but specifically pleaded unauthorized quarrying might have been done by preceding lessees. It was pointed out that at the time of grant of leases to it, the departmental official has not taken care to measure the existing pits made by the previous leaseholders Shri P. Chinnaiah and Shri Mahankali Ravindra.

It was also pointed out that on earlier occasions, several local villagers and vadderas were conducting quarrying operations illegally in Survey No.53. Respondent No.3 did not advert to any of the points taken in the reply filed by the appellant and levied seigniorage fee with penalty. The casual manner in which respondent No.3 dealt with the matter is clearly borne out from the following extract of order dated 20.6.2006:

Thus reply of M/s Vengamamba Stone Crusher is that M/s not considerable and Vengamamba Stone Crusher have extracted 83.827 cums. of road metal over and above the permitted quantity within the leased area and also outside the quarry lease areas.

is established The order passed by respondent No.3 further shows that he relied on the report sent by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology. This is clearly revealed from the following extracts of the order impugned in the writ petition: “The ADM&G, Rajahmundry in the reference last cited informed that previously two quarry lease were granted in favour of Sri P.Chinnaiah and Sri M.Ravindra over an extent of 10.00 acs., and 2.50 acrs respectively for Road Metal in S.No.54 of Chinasankarlapudi Village, Prathipadu Mandal, E.G. District and also stated that they have obtained transport permits for the quantity of 4000 cums., and 2100 cums., respectively.

Further, the ADM&G, Rajahmundry has reported that the total quantity of 6100 cums. of Road Metal dispatched by the lease holders have been deducted from M/s.Vengamamba Stone Crushers as the area previously granted to the above two lease holders and the existing leased area of M/s.Vengamamba Stone Crusher are one and the same. Finally, requested the DDM&G, Kakinada to initiate action for realization of amount under Rule 34(1) read with Rule 31 of APMMC Rules, 1966 and also under Rule 26 of APMMC Rules, 1966 for the quantity of 83827 cums of Road Metal against M/s.Vengamamba Stone Crusher. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx dispatched quantity cums., 89927 Thus the entire quantity is liable for penalty under Rule 26(2) of APMMC Rules, 1966. Thus the net quantity road metal to be penalized is arrived at 83.827 cums., and normal seig.fee along with penalty liable and collectable under Rule 26(2) are detailed below: Quantity Mineral Rate of Royalty Normal S.Fee 10 Times Total Penalty 83,827 Road 45/- per cum.

37,72,215/- 3,77,22,150/- 4,14,94,365/- cums. Metal Under the circumstances stated above, you are hereby requested to pay Rs.4,14,94,365/- towards normal S.Fee along with 10 times penalty as per Rule 26(2) of APMMC Rules, 1966 illicit transportation of 83,827 cums., of Road Metal from S.No.53 of Chinasankarlapudi Village, Prathipadu Mandal, E.G. District. They should pay the said amount in the shape of treasury challan in the following head of account.” illegal quarrying and In our opinion, before relying on the report sent by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology for the purpose of recording adverse finding against the appellant, respondent No.3 was duty-bound to make available a copy of the report of the latter and give it an opportunity to controvert the same. Similarly, while dealing with the question whether or not the appellant was actually guilty of unauthorized quarrying of road metal from Survey No.53 and outside the quarry lease area, respondent No.3 was duty- bound to advert to the contents of the reply to the show cause notice and then determine the liability, if any of the appellant.

The failure of respondent No.3 to comply with these basics has resulted in grave injustice. Therefore, order dated 20.6.2006 is liable to be declared as vitiated due to violation of the rules of natural justice. Adverting to the revisional order, we find that even though Secretary to Government took cognizance of the points taken in the memo of revision and briefly referred to the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, he too did not assign reasons for upholding the demand of seigniorage fee. The revisional authority did note that there was serious discrepancy in the marking of the areas in respect of which lease was granted to the appellant, but did not deal with the crucial issue and casually confirmed the levy of seigniorage fee. For the sake of reference, a portion of paragraph 10 and whole of paragraph 11 of the revisional order are extracted below: “10…………………………It is seen from the letter No.3840/Q1/2005, dated 16-12-2005 of Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Rajahmundry due to lack of proper survey the present working areas and the areas marked in this survey number in the sketch are different and which causes problems to the existing lease positions and further stated that the survey team have made suggestion to modify the sketches appended to the lease deeds.

It is also stated therein that it may not be reasonable to say that lessee has encroached outside the leased area without alienation of full extent granted to them on the scaled map. Further, it is observed that the Department officials present at the time of hearing have also stated that the entire precised area is not fit for usage of road metal and waste material which is also occurred. 11. In the above circumstances, Government, by exercising the powers conferred under Rule 35-A of APMMC Rules, 1966, hereby waive the penalty only, subject to condition that the revision petitioner shall pay the normal seigniorage fee of Rs.37,72,215/- within one month, from the date of receipt of these orders. The Revision Application is disposed of accordingly.” It is, thus, clear that the revisional authority also failed to consider the points taken by the appellant in the revision petition and decide the same by assigning reasons.