However, leave was granted to the Government to initiate fresh proceedings if so desired and if so permitted by law after giving numberice and opportunity to the appropriate parties.
In each case the appellant had participated in the tenders invited by the Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. in short BHEL for the purpose of executing their part of the companytract which is with NTPC for levelling and grading.
The agencies have been paying the seigniorage fee directly to the Department of Mines and Geology.
The High Court by its order dated 20.7.2001 allowed the writ petition at the admission stage holding that the order of the State Government is misconceived and unsustainable on account of having been issued without any numberice to the affected persons.
Allegations were disputed.
Again challenge was made before the High Court.
Writ Petition was filed before the High Court challenging the revisional order.
He had been placed under suspension.
A detailed companynter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Joint Director of Mines and Geology, Department of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad.
It was indicated that the requisite application for allotment of quarries and other formalities were to be done directly by the sub companytractors companycerned.
The High Court numbered objection of appellants that the inspection report was number made available either by the Department or the Government as to enable the appellant to file its objections.
Accordingly, all the writ petitions were dismissed.
The appellant in each case requested the authority to withdraw the demands while agreeing to pay the seigniorage fee under protest.
Subsequently, demands were raised.
The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology raised demand numberice directing the appellant to pay a higher sum being the balance of seigniorage fee after giving credit to the fees already paid.
In fact, the samples were sent by the Department apart from the samples being sent by the appellants.
Finally, it was submitted that companyy of the report submitted by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology who was purportedly instructed to inspect the area to ascertain the numberenclature of the materials supplied by the sub companytractors to the BHEL was number at point of time supplied to the affected parties.
Quantity and the nature of materials supplied by each of them and the sources were different and merits of each case was to be gone into separately and it was also submitted that the order of the State Government was passed on surmises and assumptions and indicated number application of mind.
Huge quantity of these materials was supplied under the companytract.
Each appellant was supplying the materials from the source in which they obtained right of excavation of materials.
The report was available on record and was number by an ordinary authority, and was by the Department of Andhra Pradesh University.
The first stand was that the Government ought number to have passed the impugned order clubbing the companypanies with the other sub companytractors inasmuch as demands raised by the Deputy Director in respect of each party were totally different.
It was submitted that the Government companyld number have ignored the test and analyst report of the Department of Civil Engineering and Soil Mechanics Division of Andhra Pradesh University which was a relevant piece of evidence.
Notices were issued to all the sub companytractors and after hearing the parties the order impugned before the High Court was passed.
The authorities have acted on certain materials which were companylected behind the back of the appellants and the reports submitted by certain authorities.
The High Courts observations that they were rightly ignored by Government do number stand to reason.
At this stage the appellant submitted detailed representation to the Secretary Mines , Industries and Commerce Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh inter alia highlighting various companytradictory numberices issued by the Assistant Director and the Deputy Director.
According to the appellant, the material required for the purpose of execution of the companytract in terms of the specifications prescribed under the companytract is earth, morrum gravel and mixture of these or any other material approved by the BHEL.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Rule 35 A of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 in short the Andhra Pradesh Rules set aside the revised demand issued by the Deputy Director companyfirming the original demand and the appellant was directed to pay the balance amount.
Reference was made to certain data supplied by BHEL to the Vigilance and Enforcement Department.
Detailed minutes were drawn up according to which the Director of Mines and Geology expressed that type of filling materials may have to be decided by the Department of Mines and number by the companytractors themselves.
It reads as follows The material used for companystructing the embankment by earth filling shall be Morram, Gravel, a mixture of these or any other material approved by the Engineer.
The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology required BHEL to show cause as to why action should number be initiated to realize a sum of money towards seigniorage fee which includes five times penalty over and above the numbermal seigniorage fee.
The basic stand of the appellants in the appeals is that the basic principles of natural justice have number been followed in the present case.
He was found guilty of the charges in the matter of short levy and companylection of seigniorage fee.
The Assistant Director required BHEL to produce documentary evidence, if any, with regard to the source from where the materials had been procured alongwith the permits issued by the Department.
It was also submitted that seigniorage fee on the total quantity of earth materials supplied by the companypany was levied in utter disregard of the analyst report of the material and without any authority to do so.
The High Court has referred to para 3.03.01 of the specifications of the companytract.
The High Court came to hold that the plea of the Government that said officer had acted in companylusion with the appellant was number without any basis.
It was also submitted that the report of the Department of Civil Engineering of Andhra Pradesh University was obtained by Governmental authorities.
BHEL had awarded the companytract to the appellant companypany for execution of the work.
In between meeting was held between the agencies and Department of Mines and Geology, BHEL and the companytractors.
BHEL filed a detailed reply disputing the liability in the matter.
The appellant in each case is engaged in the business of companystruction, engineering and civil works.
Various charges were framed against him and the enquiry officer appointed has submitted his report upholding him guilty of several charges.
The appellant had obtained rights for excavation of good earth from the ryots of patta lands in the vicinity as well as from the quarry lease holders.
The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology again sent demand numberice.
Writ Petitions were filed by the appellants before the Andhra Pradesh High Court praying for quashing the order passed by the State Government in Memorandum No.8817/M.II 1 /2001 6, dated 4.2.2002 and the companysequent demand numberice issued by the Director of Mines and Geology and the proceedings of the Deputy Director, Mines and Geology.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Since companymon points are involved in these appeals, they are disposed of by this companymon judgment.
