S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THESE Writ Appeals are directed against the common Order of the learned Single judge dated 14-2-2001 made in W. P. Nos. 14529 and 14531 of 2000. ( 2 ) THE respondent Companies viz. , M/s. Siddhardha Constructions Private limited and N. Sambasiva Rao and company filed the above writ petitions for mandamus declaring the action of the appellants herein in proposing to apply, demand and collect the revised and enhanced Seigniorage fee from them as per g. O. Ms. No. 331, Industries and Commerce (M-I) Department dated 21-6-2000 with effect from 29-6-2000 as violative of clause (6) of the Lease Deeds executed in favour of them and for a consequential direction to the appellants herein to accept the seigniorage fee at the pre-existing revised rates and to issue despatch permits on that basis. ( 3 ) THE background facts leading to the filing of the above Writ petitions may briefly noted as under: The writ petitioners are the companies engaged in Civil Engineering works. The petitioner in W. P. No. 14529 of 2000 was granted lease for a period of 15 years from 31-12-1993 te 30-12-2008 in s. No. 733 and from 2. 6-2-1994 to 25-2-2009 in s. No. 742 of Raigifi village, Bhongir Mandal; nalgonda District for quarrying rough stones/road metal. The petitioner in w. RNo. 14531 of 2000 was granted lease for 15 years from 25-1-1995 to 24-1-2010 and 18-6-1997 to 17-6-2012 in S. No. 733 of the same Raigiri village. The Government of andhra Pradesh issued G. O. Ms. No. 331 industries and Commerce (M-1) department dated 21-6-2000 amending the schedules I and II of the Andhra Pradesh minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 increasing the seigniorage fee payable and the said Government order was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 29-6-2000. By virtue of the said notification, the authorities of the Mines and Geology, the appellants 2 and 3 herein, demanded that the writ petitioners are liable to pay the seigniorage fee at the enhanced rate with effect from the date of publication of g. O. Ms. No 331 dated 21-6-2000 in the andhra Pradesh Gazette. Being aggrieved by the said action of the authorities of the department of Mines and Geology, the above writ petitions were filed. No 331 dated 21-6-2000 in the andhra Pradesh Gazette. Being aggrieved by the said action of the authorities of the department of Mines and Geology, the above writ petitions were filed. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the writ petitioners, they are liable to pay the seigniorage fee at the enhanced rate only with effect from 29-12-2000, and not with effect from 29-6-2000 when G. O. Ms. No. 331 dated 21-6-2000 came into force by virtue of clause (6) of the Agreement entered into between the writ petitioners and the authorities. The above contention of the writ petitioners was found favour with the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the learned single Judge by the common order impugned in these Writ Appeals has allowed the writ petitions holding that in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 331 dated 21-6-2000, the writ petitioners are liable to pay dead rent and seigniorage fee at the enhanced rate only with effect from 29-12-2000. Hence these writ appeals by the State Government and its authorities. ( 5 ) WE have heard the learned Government Pleader for Industries and commerce and Sri V. Rajagopala Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents. The learned Government Pleader contended that by virtue of G. O. Ms. No. 357 dated 5-9-1994, clause (6) of the Agreement entered into between the parties stood deleted. Therefore, it was not open for the writ petitioners to contend that the dead rent and seigniorage fee enhanced vide g. O. Ms. No. 331 dated 21-6-2000 and published on 29-6-2000 in the A. P. Gazette, should be applied only after the expiry of six months from 29-6-2000. The learned government Pleader also contended that issuing notice before raising demand in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 331 dated 21-6-2000 was not necessary in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in d. K. Trivedi and Sons v. State of Gujarat. The learned Government Pleader maintained that the view taken by the learned Single judge that the Government and the governmental authorities are entitled to demand seigniorage fee and dead rent at the enhanced rate only with effect from 29-12-2000 and not with effect from 29-6-2000 would mean giving enforceability to clause (6) of the agreements which does not exist by virtue of G. O. Ms. No. 357 dated 5-9-1994. No. 357 dated 5-9-1994. Sri V. Rajagopala Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that one of us (SRN. J) in w. P. No. 16861 of 1996 dated 30-7-1997 rejected the similar contention of the State government and its authorities and held that the liability to pay the seigniorage fee and dead rent at the enhanced rate with effect from 02-02-1997 i. e. , to say after the expiry of six months as envisaged under clause (6) of the Agreement therein. ( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the only question that arises for our decision in this Writ Appeal is whether the writ petitioners are liable to pay the seigniorage fee and dead rent with effect from 29-6-2000 or from 29-12-2000? ( 7 ) NO doubt, in the agreements entered into between the parties, under clause (6), it is provided that in case of increase of the seigniorage fee and dead rent, six months notice should be given to the lessees and the dead rent and seigniorage fee at the enhanced rate can be demanded from the lessees after the expiry of six months from the date of notice. If this clause were to exist without there being any amendment, perhaps, the writ petitioners would have been entitled to insist that the State government and its authorities could claim the dead rent and seigniorage fee only with effect from 29-12-200, that is to say, after the expiry of six months from the date on which g. O. Ms. No. 331 dated 21-6-2000 was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. This is not the situation in the present case. Admittedly, clause (6) of the lease deed which was statutorily prescribed was subsequently deleted with effect from 5-9-1994 by the Government by issuing g. O. Ms. No. 357 dated 5-9-1994. Therefore, the stipulation contained in clause (6) of the lease deeds cannot be given effect in view of the deletion of that clause. There is no controversy between the parties that g. O. Ms. No. 331 dated 21-6-2000 came in to force with effect from 29-12-2000 when that g. O. was published in the Andhra Pradesh gazette. Since, clause (6) of the lease deeds stood deleted with effect from 5-9-1994, the writ petitioners are liable to pay the seigniorage fee with effect from the date on which G. O. Ms. No. 331 dated 21-6-2000 came in to force with effect from 29-12-2000 when that g. O. was published in the Andhra Pradesh gazette. Since, clause (6) of the lease deeds stood deleted with effect from 5-9-1994, the writ petitioners are liable to pay the seigniorage fee with effect from the date on which G. O. Ms. No. 331 dated 21-6-2000 came into force. Admittedly, G. O. Ms. No 331 dated 21-6-2000 came into force with effect from 29-6-2000. In conclusion, we hold that the writ petitioners are liable to pay the seigniorage fee with effect from 29-6-2000. In that view of the matter, we, with respect, cannot sustain the view taken by the learned single Judge. ( 8 ) IT is true that in W. P. No. 16861 of 1996 dated 30-7-1997, the Court held that g. O. Ms. No. 357 dated 5-9-1994 is only prospective in operation and, therefore, the department is bound by the condition incorporated in the lease deed that the department could collect the seigniorate fee and dead rent at the enhanced rate only after the expiry of six months time from the date of the G. O. We have perused the Judgment delivered in the above case. In that case, on behalf of the Department, it was not pointedly argued that by virtue of g. O. MS. NO. 357 dated 5-9-1994, Clause (6) of the lease deed stood deleted with effect from 5-9-1994, and, therefore, after that date the petitioners therein could not enforce the condition incorporated in clause (6) of the lease deed. The opinion handed down in the said Judgment is not the outcome of the proper appreciation of the correct rule position. Be that as it may, that holding, being of a single Judge Bench, would not bind us and the Division Bench is entitled to take a different view. ( 9 ) IN the result, the Writ Appeals are allowed. The common order of the learned single Judge dated 14-2-2001 made in w. P. Nos. 14529 and 14531 of 2000 is set aside and W. RNos. 14529 and 14531 of 2000 are dismissed with no order as to costs.