Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1553 (AP)

B. Nagaswamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2014-12-23

K.J.SENGUPTA, SANJAY KUMAR

body2014
Judgment Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.11.2014 passed in W.P. No. 36176 of 2014 filed by the appellant herein. 2. The relief sought for in the writ petition is as follows: "... to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent No. 2 in issuing the Recovery Certificates against the petitioners herein u/sec. 3(1) of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 vide letter No. 6505/I.O./2012-9, dated 17.09.2014 and Lr.6505/I.O./2012-11, dated 17.09.2014 even before proving the guilt of the petitioners in Cr. No. 119 of 2014 of Veldurthy police station as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same." 3. As it could be understood on a reading of the aforesaid relief that the petitioners want to contend that until and unless the competent criminal Court decides the guilt of an offence in terms of the First Information Report, no recovery proceedings could be initiated. In other words, they want to say that civil authority should stay the recovery proceedings till the decision of the criminal Court. 4. Learned Single Judge on fact found indisputably that the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology under Section 3(1) of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 issued a Certificate for recovery and the said certificate was forwarded to the Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool, for recovery of Rs. 1,28,21,248/- from the petitioners. Before issuing the said demand notice, a show cause notice dated 12.12.2013 was issued to the petitioners and after considering the explanation submitted by them the above demand notice was issued on 22.03.2014 confirming the amount to be recovered from the petitioners for illegal extraction of iron ore, which was quantified at 7,285 metric tons. The above demand notice is not under challenge and it has reached its finality. 5. Even this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot reopen the matter as this Court is of the view that exercise of such power of issuance of demand notice is not illegal and cannot be stayed on any ground in absence of challenge. The above demand notice is not under challenge and it has reached its finality. 5. Even this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot reopen the matter as this Court is of the view that exercise of such power of issuance of demand notice is not illegal and cannot be stayed on any ground in absence of challenge. As on today on narration of fact the situation emerges that the petitioners have no option except to pay the aforesaid amount. In other words, in case of failure, the appropriate authority shall recover the amount in accordance with law. The recovery proceedings were issued against the amount quantified for illegal extraction of the minerals, which admittedly belong to the Government not to the petitioners. 6. Now a case has been registered to take cognizance of the alleged criminality of the petitioners. We are of the view that the criminal proceedings stand on a different footing from that of the present recovery proceedings though the criminal case has its origin from the same fact. In case of civil liability the offender has to discharge the liability compensating the person affected in accordance with law, but in criminal action in addition to payment of compensation, the wrong doer is to receive punishment. Here the admitted position is that extraction of minerals has been done and it was found as illegal. Whether it was done with an intention to commit an offence or not is another aspect of the matter. But illegality of extraction of minerals in civil side is proved. It is settled position of law that the findings of the criminal Court does not bind the civil Court, but reverse it true. The civil Court will proceed independently of the proof of fact of criminality. In a hypothetical case if an employee commits theft of the property of the employer and if the competent criminal Court acquitted him, still it is open for the employer may not retain him in services, though acquitted. The employee cannot claim as a matter of right for reinstatement on the ground of acquittal, since it is the question of confidence of employer in the employee. In this case, even after paying compensation for illegal extraction of mineral, the appellant is still to face criminal consequences. We think that the learned Single Judge has passed correct and just order. In this case, even after paying compensation for illegal extraction of mineral, the appellant is still to face criminal consequences. We think that the learned Single Judge has passed correct and just order. Hence, we do not want to interfere with the same. 7. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. 8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.