High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired. therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Demand Notice No.1684leu2o1z, dated 16-1.1- 2024 issued by the Assistant Director of Mines and Georogy. Mahabubnagar is wholly illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the constitution of lndia and consequenfly declare that the petitioner is not liable for payment of any amount as demanded in the said Demand Notice, dated 16-1 1- 2024. ----7 lA NO: 1 oF 2025 Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstarrces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Demancr Notice No.16g4teu2o17, dared 16-11-2024 issued by the Assistant Directoi of Mines and Geology, Mahabubnagar. counsel for the petitioner: srR RAV| KONDAVEETT, sENloR couNSEL FoR counser ror the Responu"ns, nl# [ffiXr1lE31[Bt'#[tJl,. TheCourt made the following: ORDER I n ORDER: HON'BLE SRI JT.ISTICE K. LAI(SHMAN WRIT PEf,ITION No.9OOS of2o25 Heard Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistalt Government Pleader for Mines and Geologr appearing for respondent Nos'1 to 4' Perused the record.

2. Petitioner has obtained lease vide proceedings dated 2O.O4.2O18 from respondent No.2 for quarrSring Stone & Metal over an extent of 4.58 Hectares in Sy'No'2S of Shankarayapally Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, for a period of twenty (20) years' Vide proceedings' dated 22.06.2018, respondent No.3 accorded permission for inclusion of Gravel as additional mineral in respect of the quarry lease granted vide aforesaid proceedings dated 2O.O4.2O18. According to the petitioner, it has been carrying out the mineral operation strictly in accordance 't with the aforesaid Proceedings (L'J w P N{ 9005 ol2025 2

3. While '[hr: matter stood thus, respondent N':'4 has issued show r:antse notice, dated 22 'tO '2024 w1ner'::in it is stated that respondent No.2 vide Memo, dated 27 'r)l'2O24 directedrespondentNo.3toconductinspectionolquarry leases for (iranite, (31) minerals, Stone and Metal' Limestone Slabs and Gravel etc', Mineral based In iustries and Mineral Stock yards and take action against the violations asi per Telangana State Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966r (ior short 'the Rules, 1966), to augn:lent the mineral revenue to the Government. Thefefore, joir-.t Survey and inspection was conducted in respect of the subject quarry lease area and submitted a report stating that at the time of ,inspection, the quarry lease is working' with 1 Hitachi in the quarry lease area' As per the ETfi survey maps and reports, the work out Pits was shown within the quarry lease' area and outside the quarry lease area by encroachmr:nts and as per the cross sections, '-he total quantity ol sltone and Metal and overburden isr arrived

450760.54 M3 inside the quarry lease area' The ovr:rburden a- , KL,J W-P No.9OO5 of 2025 quantity is 456 M3 and obtained dispatch permits for Gravel for a quantity of 34520 M3.

4. It is further stated that after excluding overburden (456 M3) and gravel dispatched quantity (34520 M3) ard demanded quantity in Notice, dated 25.10.2023, issued to M/s. Srinivasa Stone Crusher encroached into the quarry lease area of the petitioner herein for .excavation and transportation of Stone & Metat for a quantity of 96600 M3. He has a-lso mentioned the details of the said quantity.

5. The details of quantities outside the quarr5r lease area by encroachment and within the leased area and outside the leased a-rea are specihcally mentioned in the tabular form in the aforesaid show cause notice. Respondent No.4 stated that the petitioner has extracted 87 1374 MT Stone and Metal within the quarr5r lease area. Thus, there is a difference of 727515 MT t871.374 MT-143859 MT) excavated and transported more than the permitted quantity violating the Rule 34 (1) of the Rules, 1966. \ Petltioner/lease holder has excavated 7994 MT Stone & f;lri ;i'r 4 Metal from outside the leased area by encrriachment violating thr: Rule 26(21 of the Rules, 1966. 'lherefore, petitioner is liable for penalization. The joint inspection team hds recommended for taking action against ttre quarry lease holder ir.s per the Rules, 1966. Fifteen (15) clays tirhe was grante<l to the petitioner to submit explanatior

6. Vide reply, dated 11.11.2024, petitioner requested respondent No.4 to grant three (3) months time for submission .cf documentary evidence of havi ng paid seigniorage Jbe. Petitioner has collected information from 2018 onwards;. Petitioner also requested respondent No.4 to conduct resurvey. Without considering the same, respondent No.4 has issued demand notice, dated

16.71.2024 directing the petitioner to pay the anrount of Rs.34,39,47,778/-. The details of the same are m,:ntioned in the tabular form in the said demand notice. Challenging the said demand notice, petitioner filed the present writ ,/ ,/ petition. \ \ ,-.r'iii, a 5 KL.J W P-No 9005 of 202s

7. Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned demand notice dated 16. Ll.2O24 is issued without considering the reply, dated 11.17.2024 submitted by the petitioner and without conSidering the request made by the petitioner to grant three (3) months time for submission of documentaqr evidence of having paid seigniorage fee. Respondent No.4 has not considered the request mad.e by the petitioner for conducting resurvey. Opportunity of hearing was not given. In fact, respondent No.4 has to issue the order on his own but not on the directions of the Deput5r Director to conduct joint inspection and on the recommendation of the said Joint Inspection team.

8. Whereas, learned Assistant Government pleader for Mines and Geologr has produced written instrrrctions of respondent No.4 stating that uide G.O.RtNo.6O, dated L2.O3.2O25, the Government has issued orders for One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme for Revision cases filed against demand notices and ETS survey. Respondent No.4 \ has lonsidered the said facts. As per the said OTS Scheme, E6 ffi, ;jl ;i tl{ ;'* q P \o qOO5 o12025 *--J 6 the petitioner has to pay an amount of Rs'6,02,9t1,341 1-' Details of the same are mentioned in the tabulal form in the said urritten instructions' Thus, according to respondent No.4, petitioner has to file a revision in terms.of Rule 35A oi the Rules, 1966' Petitioner has neither submitted an.y documentary evidence for reconci liation of supporting for having paid Seigniorage fee nor paid the normal seigniorage fee along with penalty anrount of Rs.6,02,91,;',411- asper OTS Scheme till date' A copy of the said written instructions is placed on record' g. Petiti.oner has hled copies of the bills and receipts including le11er, dated 2O-O1.2025 addressed by tLre District Roads & t}rildings Officer, Mahabubnagar, to re'spondent No.4, to show that the seigniorage fee was dedu':ted from the contract-ors with whom the petitioner entered into the agreement to supply the material and the corttracts of supply of tbe said materials through Roads & Buildings Departmenl . IL ',;- . il'lr '-l 7 KL,J W-P No.9OO5 ot 2025

10. There is no dispute that uide G.O.Rt.No.6O, dated L2.O3.2O25, the Government announced OTS Scheme for revision cases hled against the demand notices and ETS survey. In the present case, petitioner has not filed any. revision case in terms of Rule 35 of the Rules , 1966. . 11. As discussed supra, there is no dispute that in the present case, ETS survey was conducted by the Joint Inspection team.

12. Admittedly, demand notice dated 16.1 L.2024 is not on consideration of the aforesaid aspects. Opportunity was not given to the petitioner. Now, the petitioner has filed copies of proceedings dated 2O.O4.2Olg, aforesaid bills and receipts etc. There is no dispute that vide G.O.RI.No.6O, dated 12.03.2025, the Government .has withdrawn the Director of Mines & Geologr,s Circular Memo, dated 23.O2.2OI9 and introduced OTS Scheme against the demand notices issued to quaryz leases for minor minerals, stone crushers and other agencies on certain terms and conditions. Even as per the said written instructions of i*Ei!e \ \ 8 respondent J\o.4, as per OTS Scheme, normal seiEgriorage fee along with penalty amount is Rs'6,02'9 l'341/- As per the impugnecl demand notice, dated 16'11'2024' the total penalty dmount is Rs.34,39,47,778/-' Therefore' thts Court is of the con.sidered view that the aforesaid inrpugned demand noti<:e issued by respondent No'4 is not on consideration of the aforesaid aspects'

13. Theref,cre, without going in to the merits and ':lemerits of the case, only on the aforesaid ground, the irnpugned demand notir:e dated 16. ll'2)24 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent No'4 with a direction to consider the aforesaid aspects and pass orders afresh strictlf in accordalce with law' However, he shall complete the said exercise within a period of four (4) weeks fromthedateofreceiptofcopyofthisorder'subjt"cttothe result of the.same, liberty is granted to respondenl No'4 to take action against the petitioner in accordance ''vith law' Petitioner shal1 cooperate with respondent No'4 in concluding the aforesaid enquiry in terms of this older' \ i\\ t_ '-,t-1 k+;ixii**i&*x M;&i#':xrrii',&*k*,,i'1,*,,-ii;i,xr.: i.*,ii KL,J W P.No.9OO5 of 2025 9 t7

14. Accordingly, this Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. SD/- P.PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To

1. The Principal Secretary, lndustries and Commer@ pa Buildi ngs, Hyderabad, State of Telangana Director of Mi nes and Geology, Government of Telangan Deputy Director of Mines Geologv., Assistant Director of Mines and District Geology, Mahabubnagar Hyderabad 2 3 4 SECTION OFFICER rtment Secretariat a, Hyderabad. , Mahabubnagar

5. One CC to SRI KIRTHI TEJA KONDAVEETT, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY, Hiqh Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies

7. PSK, PSK '/..t .- Ji HIGH COURT DATED:2610312025 ORDER WP.No.9005 of 2025 CC TODAY -a ---'... .,,i iie r: rq. x,J c- i\'r ' - t () n /' at",.i, ,,' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Itt