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 that the impugned revision order vide Memo No.5321iM.l(2y2015, dt.08.11.2024 passed by Respondent No.1 is arbitrary, illegal, unreasoned, violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Constitution of lndia and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently seeking the direction to the Respondent No.1 authority to give reasonable opportunity to present the documentary evidence in support of my case by setting aside the impugned revision order dt.08.l1.2024 passed by the Respondent No.1 authority in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 suspend the impugned revision order vide Memo No.5321/M1(2)12015., d1.8.11.2O24 passed by the Respondent No.1, pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. GOURIDEVI KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the l'ollowing: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.371 39 0F 2024 ORDER: Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri G' Krishnaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geolory appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission'

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that aggrieved by the proceedings dated 06.03.2012, it had submitted an Appeat/Revision under Rule 35-A of the Telangana State Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and the said revision preferred is pending, since JulY, 2015. 3. Petitioner further contends that while the said revision rvas pending althrough this period, all of a sudden the authorities have pdssed an order on O8'11'2024 rejected the revision petition. 4. Petitioner further contends that though the impugned order records that despite the petitioner being provided with several opportunities to attend hearing, he having failed to attendthchearingandassuchthepetitioneriSnotinterested 2 to pursue the revision, no notices of revision hearing was served on him and, as such, the petitioner could not appear before the authority to substantiate his claim of not being liable to pay any seigniorage fee and penalty on various materials used by him in the construction.

5. Petitioner further contends that if only this Court were to show indutgence by setting aside the impugned order and remanding back to the authority directing the authority to grant an opportunity ro the petitioner, the petitioner would appear before the authority to substantiate his claim in the revision petition.

6. Per contra, learned Government pleader appearing on behalf of rc.spondents submits that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunit5z to appear before the revision authorit5r by sending notrccs to thc address mentioned in Form_J and thus it is not open for the petitioner to allege of not being issued with any notice and the order being passed in violation of natural justice.

7. Learn<:d Government pleader further submits that notwithstanding the filing of the appeal/revision by the petitioner on 2O.O7.2015, rhe authorities have also granted an opportunity ro the petitioner under One Time Settlement -(OTS) J in the year 2O16 which the petitioner failed to avail and as such it is not open for the petitioner now to claim the respondent authorities having passed the impugned order without issuing notice to the petitioner.

8. I have taken note ofthe respective contentions urged.

9. Though the petitioner had claimed not being issued with any notice of hearing of the revision petition, it is to be noted that the petitioner in the application seeking revision filed in Form J had mentioned the address for service of notice as Gokul Nagar, Wadepally, Warangal District and thus, it is not open for the petitioner now to claim of he not being served with the notice or the order having not been passed in violation of natural justice.

10. However, taking note of the fact that the Revision was kept pending since 2O15 and as the petitioner is now agreeable to appear before the authority of any date as may be hxed by this Court to substantiate his claim of not being liable to pay seigniorage fee and the penalty in respect of material used by him in the construction, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be given one more opportunity to substantiate his claim, by setting aside the impugned order dated O8.ll'2O24 and directing the respondent authorities to pass an order in a ) ) 4 time bound manner, after issuing notice of hearing to the petitioner. 1 1. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent authorit5r to pass an order afresh after issuing notice to the petitioner at the address mentioned in the affidavit hled in support of the present Writ Petition. 12. It is made clear that since the amounts being ciaimed as due relate tc the period 2OO9 to 2Oi 1, this Court is of the view the l"t respondent authoriqr is to be directed to complete the process of issuing fresh notice to the petitioner and passing of an order afresh within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 13. Subject to the above direction, the Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ , Petition shall stand closed. --l SD/-N. S HARI ASSTSTANT REG TRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 The Principal Secretary-Cum- Revision Authority' (Mines and Geology) rntuitiiei bno'3ommerce ( rvilnei-t ) oepartmen['.Government of Telangana Telangana' bi. X*iiJori; sJctetjriat. SeCretaiiat tiuildings' .HYderabad' in" iii'i"ii"'li Mi;;;;"d 6i6r"st'G"*rnnient oi relansana' Mv Home i'ii""rir"cJ.i,r "i, z-no rroot, S aiidbaa, Hvd era bad' Telanga na' GtI

3. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geologv, Hanumakonda. (oreviouslv - - ' Assistant Director of Mines and Geology( Vlgihnce), l,lafraOu'niOia,- Government of Telanqana

4. ONE CC tO SRI. GOTJRIDEVI KRISHNAIAH, AdVOCAtE TOPUCI 5. Two CCs to GP FOR MTNES AND GEOLOGy ,High Oiurt foitfre State of 6. Two CD Copies Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI BM BS cJ.& HIGH COURT DATED:0210112025 ORDER WP.No.37139 of 2024 rrc S14r 1 6 2 / FtB 2025 a i_) EspATctl sO DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COISTS 0 K^d