Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Adusumilli Venkateshwara Rao And ... vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 7 October, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(6)ALD464
ORDER
1. Common questions of law arise in all these Writ Petitions. Hence, they are all disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are the contractors for various works floated by the Government and Local Bodies.
Under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules') every person using minor mineral is required to pay the prescribed seigniorage fee on the mineral used and in default he is liable to pay penalty of five times the seigniorage fee. They arc required to use minor minerals like concrete, sand etc. Earlier, as per the then existing procedure, the seigniorage fee in respect of the minerals used by the contractors was being deducted by the Department from the bills of the respective contractors. But, however, the Government issued Memo No.49/B.n (2)/91-2, dated 4-4-1991 incorporating the following Clause:
"The contractor should produce documentary evidence for having paid the seigniorage fee to the Government as envisaged in G.O.Ms. No. 243, Industries and Commerce, dated 8-5-1986 amending the Rule 26(2) of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. In the absence of production of such evidence the normal seigniorage fee together with 5 times penalty provided in the said Rule 'will be recovered from the Contractor's bills."
Subsequently, it appears that representations were made by the Contractors' Organisations, and the Government, after considering the said representations, issued G.O.Ms. No.205, Transport, Roads and Buildings (B.III) Department, dated 8-10-1993 cancelling the instructions issued in Memo dated 4-4-1991 and reverting back to the earlier procedure as narrated above. While so, the Government reviewed the said policy and again issued G.O.Ms.No.6, Transport, Roads & Buildings (B.III) Department, dated 12-1-1996, cancelling G.O.Ms.No.205 dated 8-10-1993, and the same is assailed in these Writ Petitions.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that when the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.205 dated 8-10-1993 keeping in view the difficulties faced by the contractors and the Government Departments, it would not be appropriate for the Government to again cancel that G.O. and restore to the position as available in Memo No.49/B.II(2)/91-2 dated 44-1991, that it is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and that, therefore, the said G.O. is wholly illegal and arbitrary.
4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that the Government having issued G.O.Ms.No.205 dated 8-10-1993 found that various illegal quarrying was being resorted to by the contractors, with the result the Government was deprived of the legitimate revenues of collecting seigniorage fee and penalty. If the documentary evidence of having paid the seigniorage fee is not produced, it would cause loss to the Government; therefore, keeping in view the interests of the revenue of the Government and also the rule position under Rule 26(2) of the Rules the matter was reviewed by the Government and G.O.Ms. No.205 was cancelled with the result, the contractors are now required to produce documentary evidence of having paid the seigniorage fee to the Government as per Rule 26(2) of the Rules.
5. The point now arises for consideration is whether the condition stipulating production of documentary evidence in proof of having paid the. seigniorage fee is reasonable and whether it is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
6. Under Rule 26 of the Rules it is stipulated that on every minor mineral, seigniorage fee as prescribed has to be paid and if it is not paid a penalty of five times is to be imposed. Rule 26 of the Rules reads thus:
''26. Penalty for Unauthorised Quarrying :--(1) If any person carries on quarrying operations or transports minor minerals in contravention of these rules, he shall be liable to pay as penalty such enhanced seigniorage fee together with assessments as may be imposed by an Officer nominated by the Director of Mines and Geology.
(2) Whenever any person raises or transports minor minerals without any lawful authority, such minerals may be seized by an Officer nominated by the Director of Mines and Geology in this behalf in addition to the imposition of the penalty under sub-rule (1) :
Provided that in no case, the penalty shall exceed ten times the normal seigniorage fee and the lease or permit already granted may, at the discretion of the Deputy Director, be liable to be terminated or cancelled.
(3)(i) For the purpose of ascertaining the position of payment of Mineral Revenue due to the Government or for any other purpose under these Rules, the person authorised under sub-rule (2) may-
(a) enter and inspect any premises;
(b) survey and take measurements;
(c) weigh, measure or take measurements of stocks of minerals;
(d) examine any document, book, register or record in the possession or power of any person having the control of or connected with any mineral including the processed mineral and place marks of identification thereon and take extracts from or make copies of such document, book, register or record, and
(e) order the production of any such document, book, register, record as is referred to in clause (d).
(ii) if no documentary proof is produced in token of having paid the mineral revenue due to the Government by any person who used or consumed or in possession of any mineral including the processed mineral, he shall notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) be liable to pay five times of the normal Seigniorage Fee as penalty in addition to normal Seigniorage Fee leviable under the rules."
The validity of the aforesaid Rule was also upheld by a Full Bench of this Court in L. Venkateshwara Rao v. Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd, . In the instant case, the petitioners, being the contractors, are using the minor minerals for executing the Government civil works and they are required to pay the seigniorage fee on the minor minerals used by them. The only grievance voiced by them is that this seigniorage fee could be deducted from the bills instead of the petitioners producing the documentary evidence of having paid the seigniorage fee to the Government. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that by insisting on documentary proof it would ensure the purchase of minerals from the licensed persons. Otherwise, the contractors would resort to illegal quarrying, which is not only contrary to the rules, but also causes heavy loss to the public exchequer. In order to arrest such illegal quarrying the procedure of production of documentary evidence is insisted. It is also the case of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioners will not be prejudiced in any way by the procedure. When once they have used the minerals, there would not be any difficulty for them to produce the documentary evidence of having purchased the same from the persons possessing quarrying licence. Since the production of documentary evidence is necessary in order to comply with the requirements of Rule 26(2) of the Rules, it cannot be said that the said condition is arbitrary or unreasonable. I am in agreement with the submission of the learned Government Pleader. When they use the mineral by purchasing from the licensed dealers, viz., quarry lease holders, I do not foresee any difficulty in filing the proof of evidence. Otherwise, it leads to reasonable suspicion that the mineral was procured illegally denying the revenue to the Government. Right to carry on any occupation, trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is not an absolute right of citizen. It is open for the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of general public. By imposing the condition, it not only ensures that the material had suffered seigniorage fee but also eliminates illegal quarrying.
7. Under these circumstances, I do not find that the impugned G.O. suffers from any illegality or irregularity. Accordingly, I find no merit in these Writ Petitions and they are dismissed. No costs.
8. However, it is made clear that the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 12-1-1996 are applicable only in respect of the contracts for which the agreements are executed on or after 12-1-1996, and the works covered prior to that date shall be processed under G.O.Ms.No.205 dated 8-10-1993. The petitioners, who had already drawn their bills pending payment of seigniorage fee shali now pay the sane within a period of eight weeks, from today, if not already paid. The petitioners, who failed to comply with the condition shall also pay the penalty of five times, if the agreements are concluded and civil works carried out beyond 12-1-1996, within a period of six weeks from today.