Telangana High Court
M/S Murali Krishna Minerals vs The State Of Telangana on 29 April, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.93 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard Sri A.Praneeth, learned counsel representing Sri P.Lakshma
Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader
for Mines and Geology appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused
the record.
2. The 1st petitioner, represented by the 2nd petitioner herein by the
present Writ Petition, has assailed the action of the 4th respondent-
authority in issuing demand notice No.236/QL/2016, dt.14.10.2024,
served on the petitioner, on 03.12.2024, directing them to pay normal
seigniorage fee along with five times penalty in respect of quarry lease for
building and road metal granted in the patta land situated in Sy.No.23 of
Sirala Village, Bhainsa Mandal, Nirmal District, as being illegal and
arbitrary, with a consequential direction to set aside the same.
3. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the respondents by
the impugned proceeding had demanded normal seigniorage fee along
with five times penalty under Rules 26(3)(2) and 26(2) of the Telangana
Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’); and that the
said authority lacks jurisdiction to levy penalty, as in terms of provisions of
the Rules, penalty can only be levied by the Court, and as such, impugned
proceeding issued is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Rules.
2
4. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance is placed on the
decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.25894 of 2023
dt.14.11.2023, wherein this Court having regard to the provisions of Rule
26 of the Rules, following the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
in W.P.No.8390 of 2018 dt.30.09.2022, had held that the Assistant
Director of Mines or any other authority of the State cannot determine the
culpability of the person said to be in violation of the Mines and Mineral
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’) or the Rules
or levy a penalty and it is only a Court of competent jurisdiction which can
go into these questions and levy penalties set out under Rule 26 of the
Rules or any other provisions of the Act or the Rules.
5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Mines appearing for
respondent Nos.1 to 4 would contend that while the Rules under
consideration by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh are not pari materia to
Rules in force in the State of Telangana, and as such, the decision
rendered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.8390 of 2023
relying which order in W.P.No.25894 of 2023 has been passed by this
Court, the respondents-authorities have filed an application, vide I.A.No.1
of 2024, seeking review of the aforesaid order bringing out the difference
between the Rules under consideration before the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh and the Rules as existing in the State of Telangana and as such,
the petitioner cannot place reliance on the order of the High Court of
3
Andhra Pradesh or the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.25814 of
2023.
6. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the validity of
Rule 26 of the Rules has been confirmed by Full Bench of this Court in
L.Venkatesw ara R ao v/ s. Singareni Collieries Com pany Lim ited 1
and as such, the authorities under the Act and the Rules are competent to
levy penalty.
7. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that inasmuch
as remedy of appeal/revision is provided under the Rules, the petitioner
ought to have availed the aforesaid remedy, instead of assailing the
impugned demand notice by approaching this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
8. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
9. Though the petitioner had placed heavy reliance on the decision of
the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.25814 of 2023, since, it is
now informed to this Court that the respondents-authorities having sought
for review of the aforesaid order, vide Review IA.No.1 of 2024, the
petitioner cannot claim of the said order having attained finality, for them
to place reliance thereon.
1
1993 SCC Online AP 451
4
10. Insofar as the reliance placed on the decision of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.8390 of 2018 dt.30.09.2022 is concerned,
since, the Rules in the State of Andhra Pradesh are at variance with the
Rules in force in the State of Telangana, the said decision in the
considered view of this Court would not advance the case of the
petitioner.
11. Further, it is to be noted that a Coordinate Bench of this Court by
its order dt.31.01.2025 had allowed the Review IA No.1 of 2024 and
recalled the order dt.14.11.2023 in W.P.No.25814 of 2023. Thus, the said
order cannot be said to be in force any more.
12. Further, the Coordinate Bench of this Court thereafter had taken up
the Writ Petition, vide W.P.No.25814 of 2023 for hearing and by order
dt.25.02.2025 had dismissed the said Writ Petition, wherein it was held
that the power to levy penalty under Section 21(5) of the Act is proper
and sourced from the statute itself.
13. This Court in the aforesaid decision further held that since, the
power to levy penalty is sourced through a statute itself, the contention of
the petitioner that penalty shall be levied only under Section 21 of the Act
does not stand the judicial scrutiny and thus, levy of penalty by
respondents is in accordance with law.
5
14. As this Court by the aforesaid decision having held that not only the
Court that can levy penalty, but also the authority under the statute can
levy penalty, the claim of the petitioner that the impugned order levying
penalty by the 4th respondent as being without jurisdiction, in the
considered view of this Court does not merit consideration.
15. Since the petitioner have placed reliance on the decision of the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh to support their contention and the said
decision having been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in its
order dt.25.02.2025 in W.P.No.25814 of 2023, this Court is of the view
that the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh cannot advance the
case of the petitioner, more so, when it is not shown to this Court as to
the order of this Court not considering the provisions in correct
perspective.
16. Further, the Coordinate Bench of this Court having specifically
noted that the provisions under consideration in the decision rendered by
the High Court being at variance from the provisions in the State of
Telangana, the said decision though has a persuasive value cannot
advance the case of the petitioner.
17. Further, though it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the
respondents-authorities having mechanically levied maximum penalty
prescribed under the Rules, as it is contended on behalf of the
6
respondents that inasmuch the Rules provide for of appeal/revision and as
to whether the circumstances warrant levy of maximum penalty or not
involves disputed question of fact, this Court is of the view that such
disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in a Writ Petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and for the said reason, the
petitioner have to avail the remedies provided under the statute and the
Rules.
18. It is settled position of law that there is a disputed question of fact
and an alternative remedy is available, a Writ Petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India is not maintainable (see R adha Krishna
I ndustries v/ s. State of Him achal P radesh 2 and Com m issioner of
I ncom e-tax v/ s. Chhabil Dass Agarw al 3 ).
19. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the present
Writ Petition as filed is not maintainable and the petitioner should be
relegated to avail the remedy of appeal/revision as provided under the
statute.
20. Granting liberty as noted hereinabove, the Writ Petition is disposed
of. No order as to costs.
2
2021 SCC OnLine SC 334
3
(2014) 1 SCC 603
7
21. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner on being served
with demand notice dt.14.10.2024 on 03.12.2024, having filed the Writ
Petition on 02.01.2025, this Court is of the view that the time spent in
pursuing the present Writ Petition before this Court is to be excluded for
the purpose of computation of limitation, to enable the petitioner to
approach the competent authority by filing revision/appeal in terms of the
Rules.
22. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall
stand closed.
__________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date:29.04.2025
GJ
[ad_1]
Source link