Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K Govardhan Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 27 January, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
WRIT PETITION No.1866 of 2022
ORDER:-
Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Naveen Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for the respondents.
Memo No.5409/M.I(1)/2019-1 dated 23.07.2020 of the 1st respondent herein and also the demand notices bearing No. 1654/Q/2010 dated 11.04.2018 and 20.08.2018 of the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Markapuram/ 4th respondent herein are under challenge in the present writ petition.
Preceded by a show cause notice bearing No. 1654/Q/2010 dated 14.02.2018, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be initiated under Rules 26(1) and 26(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology vide demand notices bearing No. 1654/Q/2010 dated 11.04.2018 and 20.08.2018, requested the petitioner to pay a total sum of Rs.51,68,750/- which includes normal seigniorage fee, market value and penalty. The said demand came to be raised under Rule 26(3)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.
Aggrieved by the said demand raised by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, the petitioner herein filed a revision before the 1st respondent under Rule 35(A) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The 2 revisional authority vide Memo No. 5409/M.I(1)/2019-1 dated 23.07.2020, partly allowed the said revision application filed by the petitioner herein and directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.23,34,375/- towards one time Market Value while waiving off the balance Market Value and Penalty.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned action, which culminated in the issuance of the demand notices dated 11.04.2018 and 20.08.2018, is highly illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and without jurisdiction. In support of his submissions and contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner takes support of the judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.8356 of 2020, 8361 of 2020 and 8366 of 2020 dated 06.10.2020 and the judgment in W.P.No.43370 of 2018 dated 08.02.2021. Copies of the said judgments rendered by this Court are filed along with the present writ petition as material papers.
In the judgment dated 06.10.2020 in W.P.No. 8356 of 2020 and batch, this Court, while dealing with Rule 26(3)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules,1966, held as follows:
"Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, this is the punishment that can be imposed by a Court of competent jurisdiction only. The earlier Rule has been drastically amended and the words fine "along with" market value and seigniorage fee or both have been incorporated. Higher punishment is proposed and the power to sentence the defaulter to imprisonment is also given. It is clear that the power of imposing the punishment of imprisonment with or 3 without fine/ market value etc., is conferred exclusively to the Courts of competent jurisdiction only and the same cannot be exercised by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology (Respondent No.3). The fine to be imposed is also linked to the marked value and the seigniorage fee. Imprisonment up to two years or fine along with market value etc., or both are the alternatives.
As per the law of the land, these are within the exclusive domain of the courts only. Rule 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Dealer's License Rules, 2000, on which the respondent relies upon merely states that penalty can be imposed. This Rule does not override the amended Rule 26(3)(ii) of the Rules and it does not authorize the 3rd respondent to decide on the punishments. The old Rule may have authorized the officials to levy penalty but in this Court's opinion the new Rule by prescribing punishment of imprisonment up to two years or with fine and market value of the mineral etc., or both has taken this power out of the purview of the 3 rd respondent and the like. As rightly submitted by the petitioner this is a penal provision and like all penal provisions it should be very strictly constructed. The law is well settled and need not be repeated here.
The power to impose such punishments of imprisonment with other penalties is exercisable by the competent Court's alone.
In fact, following the aforesaid judgment, W.P.No.43370 of 2018 also came to be allowed. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel that though the Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the aforesaid judgment, no stay has been granted by the Division Bench .4
In view of the above reasons, following the judgments rendered by this Court, referred to supra, and the principle laid down therein, this writ petition is also allowed in terms thereof, setting aside the demand notices No. 1654/Q/2010 dated 11.04.2018 and 20.08.2018 of the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Ongole/ 4th respondent herein and the order of the state Government in revision vide Memo No. 5409/M.I(1)/2019-1 dated 23.07.2020. However, this order will not preclude the respondents from taking appropriate action as per Rules. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI Date:27.01.2022 BSP 5 28 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.1866 OF 2022 Date: 27.01.2022 BSP