Telangana High Court
M/S Vaishnavi Stone Crusher, vs The State Of Telangana, on 25 January, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 31337 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Writ Petition questions the action of the 4th respondent Assistant Director of Mines & Geology in not issuing dispatch permits pursuant to lease renewed by the 3rd respondent in proceedings dated 12.09.2023 and work order dated 12.10.2023 for building stone and road metal over an extent of 1.220 hectares in Survey No. 144 of Gourapur Village, Kodimial Mandal, Jagtiyal District.
2. Petitioner details the history of quarry lease for building stone and road metal, initially granted in 2006 for 15 years in Survey No. 298 of Gourapur Village, Jagtyal District by the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Warnagal vide proceedings dated 22.08.2006, valid till 29.09.2021. Petitioner, it is stated, without any complaints, conducted quarry operations and established M/s Vaishnavi Stone Crusher. In 2017, a DGPS survey by the empanelled agency M/s Soham Ferro Manganese Pvt. Ltd. was conducted by the department on 10.11.2017, during which, it was revealed that worked pit is falling outside the leased area. A notice was issued in 2022, which prompted petitioner to request for re-survey to address variations in original chain survey and DGPS survey. 2
Despite the representations and renewal Application within the stipulated period, the lease renewal faced delays. As the lease period is coming to expire by 29.09.2021, petitioner submitted renewal Application within the stipulated period as per T.S. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for brevity, 'the Rules'), on which, LOI was issued by Deputy Director of Mines & Geology on 02.05.2022. While so, it is stated, petitioner received a show cause notice on 31.01.2023, alleging unauthorised quarrying based on an ETS Survey Report based on joint inspection conducted on 19.01.2023 and report submitted to the effect that petitioner excavated and transported building stone and road metal for quantity of 69478.9 M3, as per office records, lease-holder had obtained dispatch permit for quantity of 30,970 M3 and unauthorised quarrying is 55508.9 M3 which is liable as per Rule 34(1) of 1966 Rules.
Petitioner is stated to have submitted detailed explanation on 16.02.2023 and 03.03.2023, denying unauthorised quarrying and they complied with Rules and provided evidence of supplying materials to government contractors. However, a demand notice dated 24.03.2023 was issued, which resulted in petitioner filing a Revision on 25.04.2023. As the said Revision is pending adjudication and 3 since the 4th respondent is not issuing dispatch permits and processed renewal application, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 15088 of 2023. This Court in the said Writ Petition directed expeditious resolution of Revision Petition. Thereafter, lease was renewed on 12.09.2023 and petitioner obtained necessary approval i.e. environmental clearance, CFE & CFO. As such, petitioner approached the 4th respondent to allot a code to apply for dispatch permits on line, however, due to Election code, the 1st respondent has not conducted hearings, causing delays. It is finally stated that petitioner is ready to oblige the outcome of the Revision Petition filed against the demand notice.
3. In the counter filed on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3, the 4th respondent stated that quarry lease for building stone and road metal over an extent of 1.22 hectares in Survey No. 144 of Gourapur Village was granted in favour of petitioner by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology vide proceedings dated 22.08.2006 and the lease-holder obtained dispatch permits, duly paying advance seigniorage as per Rules for the quantity of 13970 M3 of building stone and road metal up to expiry of quarry lease on 20.09.2021. Petitioner filed renewal Application on 20.02.2021 which was received in the office on 20.02.2021. Further, quarry operations were stopped from the date of expiry of lease as per amended Rules. The lease-holder 4 paid application fee of Rs.99,000/-, renewal fee of Rs.4,88,000/- and obtained statutory clearances.
It is stated, the Government vide G.O.Ms. No. 37, dated 19.06.2017 considered and notified empanelled agencies for conducting DGPS/ETS Survey and demarcation for the existing prospecting license / mining lease / quarry lease and for mineral blocks in the State of Telangana. Subsequently, the government issued Memo dated 05.07.2017 specifying guidelines for conducting DGPS/ETS surveys. Accordingly, DGPS survey of petitioner's quarry lease area by M/s Soham Ferro Manganese Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur was conducted on 10.11.2017 and DGPS maps and report were approved by the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Warangal on 18.10.2019. It is stated that the Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad granted permission to the empanelled agency M/s Lotus Engineers, Warangal for deferential Global Positioning System / ETS survey and preparation of Geo-referenced vectorised cadastral maps of quarry lease areas as per proceedings dated 22.09.2018. The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology requested M/s Lotus Engineers to conduct ETS survey of all existing quarry leases, including petitioner to ascertain quantities excavated and submit a report. Accordingly, ETS Survey of this quarry lease was conducted and detailed reports 5 / maps were submitted on 13.01.2023. After verification and considering / excluding permitted quantities, a show case notice was issued to petitioner on 31.01.2023 citing excess transportation of building stone and road metal to the extent of 55,508.90 M3. Petitioner's reply to the show cause notice claimed no quarrying operations outside the lease area with the entire alleged quantity supplied to government contractors and seigniorage fee has been deducted in the work bills of the contractors as per G.O.Ms.No. 23 and they evidence of seigniorage fee deduction from contractors and replied to the show cause notice on 03.03.2023, however, citing Rule 34(1) of 1966 Rules, reply was not considered. Hence, demand notice was issued on 24.03.2023 demanding seigniorage fee along with five times penalty. Simultaneously, through G.O.Ms.No. 18, dated 31.03.2022, government issued amendment to Schedule-I and III, fixing the unit of measurement as Metric Tonne and seigniorage fee as Rs.65/- per MT. It is stated that a notice was issued to petitioner instructing cessation of quarry operations in the specified area of Gourapur Village on 01.04.2023. Simultaneously, the 2nd respondent was urged to instruct the IT in-house team to block / disable E-transit option of User ID 2011060679 and User ID 2011080665, as per notice dated 01.04.2023 and accordingly, User ID of quarry lease has been 6 duly blocked. Aggrieved by the demand notice, petitioner filed Revision before the government on 25.04.2023 invoking Rule 35A. The Director of Mines & Geology directed the office to submit revision remarks on the Application on 29.04.2023. In this connection, the 4th respondent vide letter dated 09.06.2023 submitted remarks.
It is stated, the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Warangal through memo dated 19.12.2022 forwarded a complaint filed by Smt. Edla Neela on 17.11.2022 to the Hon'ble Lokayuktha of Telangana which alleged illegal quarrying operations in Survey No. 144 of Jagtyal District, prompting a directive for a detailed report from this office. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 15088 of 2023, dated 12.06.2023, wherein this Court through order dated 16.06.2023 directed the 1st respondent to consider and adjudicate the revision in six weeks. Any stay application, has to be resolved in two weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. Following the said directive, the Revision Authority scheduled hearing for 30.09.2023, however, petitioner failed to attend the same, citing the reason of being out of station from 25.09.2023 onwards for pilgrimage, as explained in the letter dated 29.09.2023 and requesting an alternative date.
7
It is finally stated that petitioner met all necessary conditions, paid required charges and submitted statutory clearances for renewal application which was processed in accordance with Rules and granted 1st renewal quarry lease for building stone and road metal over an extent of 1.22 hectares for a period of 20 years with effect from 21.09.2021 to 20.09.2041 vide office proceedings dated 12.10.2023 in favour of petitioner, however, since petitioner engaged in mineral excavation and transportation within the leased area without a vaild permit, leading to issuance of demand notice as per Rules, though petitioner claims that entire quantity suffered payment of seinorage fee and the same was deducted at source by the department in the work bills as per G.O.Ms.No. 23, dated 05.03.1999, government has to take a decision on the demand notice in the pending Revision. Since petitioner is having pending mineral dues to the government and there is no stay on the said demand notice issued by the 4th respondent ad also complaint pending before the Lokayuktha, the respondents pray for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner Smt. P. Vijayalakshmi submits that there are discrepancies in the demand notice. She alleges arbitrary action of the 4th respondent in not issuing dispatch permits since 2021 causing 8 financial loss and hardship. Citing various government memos and circulars, petitioner argues against double recovery of seigniorage charges, stating potential loss and hardship.
5. Heard learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology. He reiterates the contents in the counter-affidavit and submits that petitioner is not entitled to any relief unless and until Revision filed against the demand notice is decided.
6. Admittedly, a Revision is pending against the demand notice before the 1st respondent. In Writ Petition No. 15088 of 2023, vide order dated 16.06.2023, this Court did not grant stay of the said notice, however, directed adjudication of Revision within a time-frame of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The demand notice dated 24.03.2023 was issued on the ground that as per Rule 34(1) of the Rules, no minor mineral shall be dispatched from any of the leased areas without a valid dispatch permit issued by ADM&G, however, petitioner conducted quarrying operations without obtaining dispatch permits by payment of advance seigniorage fee and also supplied the extracted building stone and road metal for quantity of 55508.9 M3 within the quarry lease area, hence is liable for levy of normal seigniorage fee along with five times penalty. In the reply submitted to the show cause notice, petitioner stated that they conducted quarrying operations well 9 within the leased area and the entire quantity extracted has been supplied to various government contractors and seigniorage fee has been deducted from the work bills of the contractors. Anywhere, petitioner did not speak whether they paid seignorage fee in advance in accordance with Rule 34(1). Further, DGPS and ETS survey conducted by the empanelled agencies show that petitioner excavated beyond the leased out area. Hence, not satisfied with the explanation, the demand notice was issued. Also, there is a complaint submitted by Edla Neela before the Lokayukta regarding unauthorised excavation. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go into the factual aspects of the matter. In Writ Petition No. 15088 of 2023, though there is a direction to dispose of the Revision filed by petitioner against the demand notice, it appears, the same was not considered so far. Hence, it is appropriate for this Court to direct the revisional authority to decide the same expeditiously. In the meantime, the interest of petitioner is required to be protected.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in similar circumstances, this Court in Writ Petition No.23051 of 2023 set aside the demand notice and directed issue of dispatch permits. Also, another order dated 09.12.2021 in Writ Petition No. 33121 of 2021 wherein this 10 Court directed the 1st respondent therein to dispose of the Revision Application of petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Pending Revision Application, respondents were directed to grant temporary permission to petitioner subject to payment of normal seigniorage fee, as quantified in the demand notice, within a period of two weeks from that day. On granting such permission, as ordered above, petitioner shall continue to pay the normal seigniorage fee. It is made clear that the said amount to be paid by the petitioner shall be subject to result of Revision Application pending before the 1st respondent. Learned counsel therefore, requests to dispose of this Writ Petition in similar lines. He, however, submits that since normal seigniorage fee demanded under the notice is Rs.54,12,095/- which is a huge amount, some lenience may be shown in favour of petitioner.
8. In view of the orders of this Court referred to supra and also considering the request of learned counsel for petitioner, this Court directs the 1st respondent to dispose of the Revision Application of petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending Revision Application, respondents are directed to grant temporary permission to petitioner subject to payment of 35% of normal 11 seigniorage fee, as quantified in the demand notice, within a period of two weeks from today. On granting such permission, as ordered above, petitioner shall continue to pay the normal seigniorage fee. It is made clear that the said amount to be paid by petitioner shall be subject to result of Revision Application pending before the 1st respondent.
9. The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
10. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
--------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 25th January 2024 ksld