M/S. Sri Vishnu Granites v. The State Of Telangana, And 5 Others

WRIT PETITION No.24944 of 2019 Date : 19.11.2019 Between:

M/s Sri Vishnu Granites Represented by its Managing Partner T Ravinder Rao S/o Sri T Madhava Rao aged 52 years occ Business R/o Flat No 44042 Janapriya Utopia Rajendranagar HYDERABAD Telangana State Petitioner And The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary Industries and Commerce Department Secretariat Hyderabad & others Respondents The Court made the following:

WRIT PETITION No.24944 of 2019 ORAL ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology and learned Government Pleader for General Administration and with their consent, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

2.

Petitioner firm is a lease holder of granite mine. Two separate show cause notices dated 27.2.2019 were issued to previous lease holder M/s. Sri Venkatesh Granites alleging that huge quantity of unaccounted granite blocks were transported through railways by petitioner causing revenue loss to the State. He was also informed that as per the information obtained by the competent authority about rakewise railway receipts along with transit forms of the quarry lease held by petitioner unit, they transported 85 and 97 blocks respectively. According to show cause notices 120.844 and 378.28 metric tones quantity of granite respectively was transported without payment of seigniorage charges. Therefore the notices allege that petitioner is liable to pay seigniorage charges of Rs.2,02,049/- and Rs.6,22,929/- respectively and penalty quantified for not paying the seigniorage charges as Rs. 10,10,246/- and 31,14,644/- respectively. 3.

According to learned counsel for petitioner, similar such show cause notices were issued to several granite companies and transporters.

In response, several companies have submitted representation(s) seeking full particulars as to how the assessment was made and thereafter to grant 90 days time for submission of explanation. However, orders were passed in September/October, 2019 against all the granite companies, which alleged to have transported excess quantity of

unaccounted granite and demanded payment of seigniorage charges and penalty. Similar orders were passed against petitioner firm on 20.9.2019 quantifying the amount payable as Rs.12,12,295/- and 37,37,573/- respectively as liability. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred revision before the Government under Rule 35-A of the Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and the same is pending. 4.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the alleged excess unaccounted transportation of granite pertains to period 2008 to 2011 and basis of the allegation is appraisal report stated to have been issued by Vigilance and Enforcement Department on 29.5.2013 and after more than six years, process was set in motion and on that ground alone the impugned proceedings are liable to be declared as not maintainable. According to learned counsel for petitioner after 2013 till final demand notices were issued, permits were granted but presently the permits are not being granted on this ground. He would further submit that the demand notice is not final as remedy of revision is available to petitioner and petitioner has in fact availed the said remedy and the same is pending.

5.

As revision petitions are pending, at this stage, Court is not inclined to express its opinion on alleged delay in resorting to recovery. Having regard to the fact that revisions are pending, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General submits that writ petition can be disposed of with direction for expeditious disposal of pending revision. 6.

Having regard to the above submission, writ petition is disposed of directing the revisional authority to consider the revision petitions and finalise the revisions as early as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order by

assigning reasons in support of its decision. Pending consideration of the revision, 4th respondent-Assistant Director of Mines and Geology is directed to grant fresh permits subject to (i) petitioner depositing 50 % of the normal seigniorage charges quantified in each demand notice and (ii) Petitioner paying normal seigniorage charges for the permits that are granted hereinafter. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed. __________________ P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE: 19 -11-2019 TVK

WRIT PETITION No.25375 of 2019 Date : 19.11.2019