ORDER: Heard Smt. P.Vijayalaxmi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology on behalf of Respondents No.1 to 4. 2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus questioning the Notice of Respondent No.4 in Demand Notice No.584/Q3/2000, dated 20.06.2023 is against the orders of this Court in I.A. No. 1 of 2023 in WP.No.31963 of 2017, dated 03.03.2023 and in not issuing dispatch permits to petitioner to operate the quarry for building stone and road metal over an extent of 1.69 hectares in Sy.No. 132 situated at Rudraram village and over an extent of 3.27 hectares in Sy.No. 738 situated at Lakadaram Village, Patancheruvu Mandal, Medak District is arbitrary, illegal unjust and unconstitutional in violation of T.S.M.M.C Rules, 1966, consequently call for the records pertaining to Demand Notice No.584/Q3/2000, dated 20.06.2023. 3. The case of the Petitioner as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition, in brief, is as follows : a) The petitioner company was granted quarry lease for building stone and road metal over an extent of 1.69 hectares in Sy. No.132 situated at Rudraram village and over an extent of 3.27 hectares in Sy.No.738 situated at Lakadaram Village, Patancheruvu Mandal, Medak District by the 2nd Respondent through proceedings No.584/Q3/2000, dated 05.07.2000 for a period of 15 years i.e. from 05.07.2000 to 04.07.2015. The quarry lease deed was executed on 05.07.2000. The 3rd Respondent issued work orders vide proceedings No. 584/Q3/2000, dated 05.07.2000. b) The petitioner erected metal stone crushing unit within the close vicinity of leased area. The mineral extracted from the leased area is being utilized as captive source of raw material required for metal crushing industry and petitioner had been conducting quarry operations without any complaints. As the lease period is coming to an end by 04.07.2015, petitioner has submitted renewal application, within the stipulated period as prescribed in T.S.M.M.C Rules, 1966 on 16.02.2015. c) The 4th Respondent forwarded renewal application to Tahsildar for issuance of NOC, the Tahsildar in turn issued NOC vide its Letter No.C1/1864/2015, dated 04.07.2015. Instead of passing orders for renewal of lease the 4th respondent has issued a Show Cause Notice No.584/Q3/2000, dated 28.09.2016 received on 27.10.2016. c) The 4th Respondent forwarded renewal application to Tahsildar for issuance of NOC, the Tahsildar in turn issued NOC vide its Letter No.C1/1864/2015, dated 04.07.2015. Instead of passing orders for renewal of lease the 4th respondent has issued a Show Cause Notice No.584/Q3/2000, dated 28.09.2016 received on 27.10.2016. On receipt of said Show Cause Notice, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 02.11.2016 stating that, the local Waddera Community people had conducted a quarry operation adjacent to petitioner’s leased area and when petitioner questioned the same for illegal operations they informed that they are entitled to conduct quarry operations without any permission. d) Moreover, the above mentioned Waddera Community are entitled and exempted from payment of Seigniorage Fee in view of the Govt. Circulars and the same was brought to the notice of the Department with the names. Hence, the petitioner has not conducted any illegal operations and operated within the leased area as shown in the boundaries by the department and sketch annexed to the lease deed and thus, requested to drop the proceedings and initiate action against the person Mr.V. Srimanarayana and his persons who actually operated illegally. e) Without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 4th respondent issued a Demand Notice NO.584/Q3/2000, dated 15.11.2016 simply stating that explanation submitted by the petitioner is not considered and it is not satisfactory. Aggrieved by the said Demand Notice, the petitioner preferred Revision before the 1st Respondent but the same was dismissed vide Memo No.2262/M.I(Q)/2017-4, dated 23.08.2017. f) Aggrieved by the orders of Revisional Authority the petitioner has filed WP.No.31963 of 2017 before this Court and the Court passed interim orders dated 22.09.2017. Subsequently, the same was disposed off vide order dated 23.01.2023 but the impugned order is not set aside. Therefore, the petitioner has filed for being Mentioned Petition in I.A.No.1 of 2023 and vide orders dated 09.03.2023 was passed stating that, in view of said orders the entire proceedings are set-aside and directed to conduct survey with a notice to petitioner and re-locate area which has been excavated by the labour contractor and re-quantify the metal extracted and also re-consider the issue of levy of penalty. g) However, the 4th Respondent in compliance of the orders dated 23.01.2023 in WP.No.31963/2017, instead of conducting fresh survey, relied only upon earlier survey and statement of V.Srimanarayana and has issued Show Cause Notice No.584/Q/2000, dated 01.06.2023 and on receipt of said notice petitioner has submitted detailed explanation on 17.06.2023. h) Furthermore, the Demand Notice issued is only based on the statement of V.Srimanarayana who has conducted operations adjacent to petitioner’s leased area and the Petitioner also submitted a representation to 4th respondent on 25.02.2023 with request to issue a dispatch permit to start the quarry operation as he obtained loans from getting the lease and will suffer financial problems if he is not permitted to operate the quarry. Therefore, the entire procedure and action of the 4th respondent is arbitrary, illegal and unjust, and unconstitutional. Hence, this Writ Petition. 4. Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No. 4 is as under: a) The 3rd Respondent has granted a renewal quarry lease for Building Stone & Road Metal, over an extant of 4.96 Hectares in Sy.no. 132 of Rudraram & 738 of Lakdaram (V) of Patancheru (M) for a period of 20 years in favour of the petitioner. b) The Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officer vide Lr No. VE5/64/2016, dated 17.09.2016 has requested the 4th Respondent Medak to take appropriate action and to realize the evaded Seigniorage fee along with penalty amount of Rs: 1,65,55,440/- towards the lease holder as unauthorized excavation and transportation of Stone and Metal for quantity of 20,067.20 cbm was done from outside the quarry lease area. c) Therefore, the 4th respondent has issued Show cause Notice vide No. 584/Q3/2000, dated 28.09.2016 to the petitioner and then issued Demand Notice vide No. 584/Q3/2000, dated 15.11.2016 directing the petitioners to remit an amount of Rs. 15,05,040/-towards Normal Seigniorage fee along with (10) times penalty of Rs.1,50,50,400/- totaling an amount of Rs. 1,65,55,440/-, 30% of District Mineral Found, 2% State Mineral Exploration Trust and 2% of Income Tax on Normal Seigniorage Fee. d) Subsequently, the petitioner has filed Revision application before the revisional authority against the Demand Notice No. 584/Q3/2000, dated 15.11.2016 and the same was disposed off duly confirming the demand vide Memo No. 2262/M.I(2)/2017-4, Dated 23.08.2017. 1,65,55,440/-, 30% of District Mineral Found, 2% State Mineral Exploration Trust and 2% of Income Tax on Normal Seigniorage Fee. d) Subsequently, the petitioner has filed Revision application before the revisional authority against the Demand Notice No. 584/Q3/2000, dated 15.11.2016 and the same was disposed off duly confirming the demand vide Memo No. 2262/M.I(2)/2017-4, Dated 23.08.2017. e) As per this court’s order in W.P.No.31963 of 2017, the 4th Respondent has intimated the petitioner on 28.03.2023 for conducting survey on 03.04.2023 by the empanelled agency M/s Sai universal mining services Pvt. Ltd. As per the ETS survey report the lease holder i.e., the petitioner has unauthorizedly excavated and transported 19863.03 Cbm of Stone and Metal from outside the quarry leased area, wherein the said pits were falling outside the leased area and same pits were falling within the newly granted quarry leases which belongs to M/s The KVS Group, over an extent of 3.76 Hectors in Sy. No.738/1 and Sri Uyala Narayana quarry lease over an extent of 4.95 Ha in Sy.No. 738/1 of Lakadaram Village, Patancheru Mandal of Sangareddy District and the newly granted quarry lease holder is not conducting quarry operations in this old pit. f) Upon receiving the ETS report, Panchanama dated 31.05.2023 was conducted by Revenue and Mines Department in presence of the petitioner. More so, as verified from the statement which was given earlier to the Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officer by the petitioner Industries at the time of inspection of the quarry lease, he himself has committed that by over site he has excavated the mineral from the said pits. Thus, in this connection the 4th Respondent has issued Show Cause Notice followed by demand notice and conducted the Panchanama as per the orders of this High Court. Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. PERUSED THE RECORD : 5. Thus, in this connection the 4th Respondent has issued Show Cause Notice followed by demand notice and conducted the Panchanama as per the orders of this High Court. Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. PERUSED THE RECORD : 5. Order dated 23.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.31963 of 2017, reads as under: “In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the orders of the respondent No.1 in Memo No.2262/M.I(2)/2017-4, Industries & Commerce (Mines-I) Department, dated 23.08.2017 dismissing the Revision Application filed by the petitioner and confirming the Demand Notice No.584/A3/2000, dated 15.11.2016, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to declare that the petitioner is not liable for imposition of Seigniorage fee and penalty as mentioned in the above Demand Notice, dated 15.11.2016 and to pass such other order or orders. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner company was granted quarry lease for extraction of building stone used for road metal over an extent of 1.69 hectares in Survey No.132 of Rudraram Village and over an extent of 3.27 hectares in Survey No.738 of Lakadaram Village of the respective Districts. It is submitted that the petitioner has carried on the quarry operations as per the lease granted to it. It is submitted that on the basis of alleged panchanama conducted by the respondent, a show cause notice dated 28.09.2016 was issued to the petitioner alleging that he has quarried outside the lease area and as to why penalty should not be imposed for such excess extraction of material. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he had handed over the activity of extraction of the material to a labour contractor by name Sri.V.Srimannarayana and that he belonged to “Vaddera” Community. It is also submitted that the “Vaddera” Community were permitted to undertake extraction of building stone and road metal from Government lands without obtaining permissions from the concerned authorities and are exempted from payment of the Seigniorage fee and therefore, the petitioner could not resist the extraction of material from the pits existing outside the leased area. It is further also stated that the extraction of material is being carried out by the third party i.e., Sri.V.Srimannarayana, without the knowledge, consent or connivance of the company and therefore, the petitioner is not liable for seigniorage fee or the penalty. 3. It is further also stated that the extraction of material is being carried out by the third party i.e., Sri.V.Srimannarayana, without the knowledge, consent or connivance of the company and therefore, the petitioner is not liable for seigniorage fee or the penalty. 3. However, the respondents were not convinced with the explanation given by the petitioner and have quantified the unauthorized excavation and transportation of the stone and metal from outside the quarry lease area at 20,067.20 cubic meters and have arrived at the value of normal seigniorage fee of Rs.15,05,040/- and imposed penalty @ 10 times of the seigniorage fee. Challenging the same, a revision application was filed by the petitioner and the same was rejected, against which, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the area was surveyed and panchanama was conducted and it was found therein that the petitioner has exceeded the area of quarry lease granted to the petitioner and it is on the basis of the said panchanama that the excess metal extracted by the petitioner has been quantified and penalty has been imposed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged survey was conducted without issuing any notice to the petitioner as is evident from panchanama, as it did not contain the signature of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the penalty order which is passed on the basis of panchanama dated 05.02.2016, is not sustainable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in W.P.No.35415 of 2022, dated 22.11.2021, wherein this Court has taken into consideration the fact that in the said case survey was conducted without issuance of notices to the petitioner therein and further that some of the quarry lease holders in the same area have been let off i.e., no penalty was imposed on them except for the petitioner therein. Observing that only the petitioner in the said case has been imposed with penalty, whereas others were let off, the Court had directed the respondents to extend the benefit as was extended to the other quarry holders for the same survey number i.e., Survey No.144 of Khajipally Village, Jinnaram Mandal and to consider the renewal application filed by the petitioner therein. 7. 7. He has also filed the copy of memo dated 03.12.2022 in respect of a revision application filed by one Sri.S.Jagadish, S/o. S.Narasaiah, Karimnagar District, wherein a revision application was disposed of with a direction to collect normal seigniorage fee along with one time penalty. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even the petitioner should be extended similar benefit. 8. Learned Government Pleader, however, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and supported the order of the revision. 9. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has admittedly allowed the labour contractor i.e., Sri.V.Srimannarayana to excavate in his leased area and also outside the leased area using his plant and machinery, it cannot be said that he was not aware of extraction of material outside the quarry lease area. However, as pointed out by the petitioner, the panchanama, on the basis of which, excess of the material quarried has been quantified, appears to be without any notice to the petitioner. 10. In view of the same, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents to conduct a survey with notice to the petitioner and re-locate the area which has been excavated by the labour contractor and re-quantify the metal extracted and also re-consider the issue of levy of penalty on the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” 6. Order dated 09.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.1/2023 in W.P. No.31963/2017 by this Court, reads as under: “This I.A. is filed seeking permission to post the matter under the caption "for being mentioned" for the purpose of seeking clarification of order dated 23.O1.2O23 passed in W.P.No.31963 of 2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though this Court has directed the respondents to conduct the survey and relocate the area which has been excavated by the labour contractor and re-quantify the metal extracted and also reconsider the issue of levy of penalty on the petitioner, but since the Court has not set aside the impugned order, the petitioner is facing difficulty in getting the relief. Heard learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology. Having gone through the material on record, this Court finds that the Writ Petition was disposed of with certain directions which have to be followed and order will have to be passed afresh. Heard learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology. Having gone through the material on record, this Court finds that the Writ Petition was disposed of with certain directions which have to be followed and order will have to be passed afresh. Therefore, unless the earlier order which is impugned in this Writ Petition is set aside, fresh orders cannot be passed. The paragraph No.9 of the order is modified as under: "Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has admittedly allowed the labour contractor i.e., Sri V.Srimannarayana to excavate in his leased area and also outside the leased area using his plant and machinery, it cannot be said that he was not aware of extraction of material outside the quarry lease area. However, as pointed out by the petitioner, the panchanama, on the basis of which, excess of the material quarried has been quantified, appears to be without any notice to the petitioner. The impugned order is therefore set aside." Accordingly, the I.A. is allowed. 7. The relevant portion of the order impugned dated 20.06.2023 of 4th Respondent i.e., Assistant Director of Mines & Geology I/c, Sangareddy District, reads as under: “In this connection as per the Hon'ble High Court Orders, this office surveyor and empanelled agency M/s Sal Universal Mining Services Pvt.Ltd., conducted ETS survey in presence of Sri. K. Janardhan Reddy, partner of the lease. During the course of ETS Survey they have identified three pits out of which one pit is falling within the lease area and previously the lease holder has given a statement to the RV&EO, R.C.Puram, accordingly the survey team was conducted ETS survey the other two pits area falling outside the leased area, out of which one pit is located Southern side and another one is South-East side of the leased area. Further it is informed that now outside pits are falling in the newly granted existing quarry lease areas held by 1.The KVS Group and 2.Sri Vuyyala Narayana in Sy.No.738 of Lakadaram Village, Patancheru Mandal of Sangareddy District. The measurements of the pits are also recorded and Panchanama was also conducted, which was signed by the lease holder. As per ETS report Pit measurements / ETS Survey, the quantity of Stone & Metal excavated and transported from the leased area is estimated to be about 274896.39 CbM.(within the leased area some depth of the pit is logged with rain water). As per ETS report Pit measurements / ETS Survey, the quantity of Stone & Metal excavated and transported from the leased area is estimated to be about 274896.39 CbM.(within the leased area some depth of the pit is logged with rain water). Further, as per this office records the lessee has obtained dispatch permits for a quantity of about 308734 CbM. of Stone & Metal from the lease area up to the date of inspection i.e. 03.04.2023 and illegally excavated and transported from the outside the leased area for a quantity of 19863.03 CbM of Stone & Metal. Previously the survey has been conducted by the RV&EO, RC Puram unit manually and arrived quantity was 20,067.20 CbM. Hence we considered the accurate quantity taken with the instrumental /ETS survey (Electronic Total Station) used in modern survey. The details are as follows: Name of the Mineral Outside leased area excavated quantity Rate of Seigniorage fee per cum Normal Seigniorage Fee (in Rs.) 10 Times penalty (in Rs.) Total Penalty (in Rs.) Stone and metal 19863.03 CbM 75/- 1489727.00 14897270.00 16386997.00 In view of the above circumstances, through the ref 8th cited the ADM&G, Sangareddy has issued Show Cause Notice to the M/s. Sai Ramana Metal Industries., Mg. Partner Sri K. Damodar Reddy and directed to why action should not be initiated for recovery of Normal Seigniorage fee of Rs. 1489727-00 along with 10 times penalty of Rs. 14897270-00 totaling Rs.16386997-00 along with DMF of Rs. 446918-00, SMET of Rs. 29,795- 00 and IT of Rs. 29,795-00 for illegally excavated and transported from the outside the leased area for a quantity of 19863.03 CbM of Stone & Metal as per Rule 26(2) of Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 within (15) days from the date of receipt of this show cause notice failing which necessary action will be initiated as per Rules. Through the ref 9th cited M/s Sai Ramana Metal Industries has submitted reply to the Show Cause Notice and requested to kindly consider the facts submitted supra and stated that they have never conducted any quarry operations outside the leased area and during the re-survey also it was not established that the pits developed outside were conducted/developed by them. On the other hand the pits area also granted lease to other persons. On the other hand the pits area also granted lease to other persons. Merely based on the third person statement, he cannot be made responsible or scapegoat, as it was not done by him and not caught him while doing the quarry operations at the area as alleged. It's only assumption and based on the statement of Sn, V. Srimannarayana and requested to kindly drop further action on the Show Cause Notice. Hence, the explanation submitted by the M/s Sai Ramana Metal Industries is not considered as it is not satisfactory. In view of the above, circumstances, M/s Sai Ramana Metal Industries is hereby directed to remit an amount of Rs.1489727-00 towards Normal Seigniorage Fee along with 10 times penalty of Rs.14897270-00 totaling Rs.16386997-00 along with DMF of Rs. 446918-00, SMET of Rs. 29,795-00 and IT of Rs.29,795-00 for illegally excavated and transported from the outside the leased area for a quantity of 19863.03 CbM of Stone & Metal as per Rule 26(2) of Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 in the following Head of Account. The Original challans shall be submitted in this office within (15) days from the date of the receipt of this notice, failing which necessary action will be initiated as per the T.S.M.M.C. Rules, 1966 and for recovery of amounts under Revenue Recovery act without any further notice.” 8. Para 7, 8 and 10 of the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No.4, read as under: “7. Further it is submitted that as per the Hon'ble Court order the Asst. Director of Mines & Geology (I/c), Sangareddy intimation on dt. 28.03.2023 for conducting survey on 03.04.2023 to the lease holder by the empanelled agency M/s Sai universal mining services Pvt. Ltd., on that day i.e., 03.04.2023 presence of lease holder's partner K. Janardhan Reddy and sign on ETS Survey attendance sheet. Director of Mines & Geology (I/c), Sangareddy intimation on dt. 28.03.2023 for conducting survey on 03.04.2023 to the lease holder by the empanelled agency M/s Sai universal mining services Pvt. Ltd., on that day i.e., 03.04.2023 presence of lease holder's partner K. Janardhan Reddy and sign on ETS Survey attendance sheet. As per the ETS survey report the lease holder has un- authorized excavated and transported 19863.03 Cbm of Stone and Metal from outside the quarry leased area, said pits were falling outside the leased area and same pits were falling within the newly granted quarry leases which is belonging to M/s The KVS Group, over an extent of 3.76 Ha in Sy.No.738/1 and Sri Uyala Narayana quarry lease over an extent of 4.95 Ha in Sy.No.738/1 of Lakadaram Village, Patancheru Mandal of Sangareddy District, the newly granted quarry lease holder is not conducting quarry operations in this old pits. After receiving the ETS report conducted panchanama on dt.31.05.2023. That panchanama conducted by Revenue and Mines Department in presence of Lease holder K. Damodar Reddy. 8. It is submitted that as verified from the statement which was given earlier to the Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officer, Rama Chandrapuram unit by Sri K. Damodar Reddy Managing Partner of M/s Sai Ramana Metal Industries at the time earlier inspection of the quarry lease, he himself has committed that by over site he has excavated the mineral from the said pits. 9. In this connection, the Asst. Director of Mines & Geology(I/c), Sangareddy has issued Show Cause Notice No.584/Q/2000, Dt.01.06.2023 and followed by issued Demand Notice No.584/Q/2000, Dt.20.06.2023 to M/s Sai Ramana Metal Industries and directed to remit an amount of Rs. 14,89,727/- towards Normal Seigniorage fee along with (10) times penalty of Rs. 1,48,97,270/- totaling an amount of Rs. 1,63,86,997/- and 30% of District Mineral Found, 2% State Mineral Exploration Trust and 2% of Income Tax on Normal Seigniorage Fee towards the lessee has un-authorized excavated and transported for a quantity of 19863.03 cum of Stone and Metal from outside the quarry leased area.” RELEVANT PROVISION : 9. Section 77 of the Mines Act, 1952, reads as under: “77. 1,63,86,997/- and 30% of District Mineral Found, 2% State Mineral Exploration Trust and 2% of Income Tax on Normal Seigniorage Fee towards the lessee has un-authorized excavated and transported for a quantity of 19863.03 cum of Stone and Metal from outside the quarry leased area.” RELEVANT PROVISION : 9. Section 77 of the Mines Act, 1952, reads as under: “77. Exemption of owner, agent or manager from liability in certain cases.—Where the owner, agent or manager of a mine, accused of an offence under this Act, alleges that another person is the actual offender, he shall be entitled, upon complaint made by him in this behalf 1[and on his furnishing the known address of the actual offender] and on giving to the prosecutor not less than three clear days notice in writing of his intention so to do, to have that other person brought before the court on the date appointed for the hearing of the case; and if, after the commission of the offence has been proved, the owner, agent or manager of the mine, as the case may be, proves to the satisfaction of the court— (a) that he has used due diligence to enforce the execution of the relevant provisions of this Act, and (b) that the other person committed the offence in question without his knowledge consent or connivance, the said other person shall be convicted of the offence and shall be liable to the like punishment as if he were the owner, agent or manager of the mine, and the owner, agent or manager, as the case may be, shall be acquitted: Provided that— (a) the owner, agent or manager of the mine, as the case may be, may be examined on oath and his evidence and that of any witness whom he calls in support shall be subject to cross-examination by or on behalf of the person he alleges as the actual offender and by the prosecutor; (b) if in spite of due diligence the person alleged as the actual offender cannot be brought before the court on the date appointed for the hearing of the case, the court shall adjourn the hearing thereof from time to time so however, that the total period of such adjournments does not exceed three months, and if by the end of the said period the person alleged as the actual offender cannot be brought before the court, the court shall proceed to hear the case against the owner, agent or manager, as the case may be. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: DISCUSSION : 10. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner herein i.e., M/s. Sai Ramana Metal Industries, Sangareddy, had filed an application dated 24.08.2022 for renewal of quarry lease for Mineral Building Stone, Road Metal, over an extent of 4.960 Ha., in Sy.No.132 and 738 of Lakdaram, Rudraram Village, Patancheru, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy, for a period of 20 years w.e.f., 01.04.2021 and in response to the said application the 3rd Respondent herein granted renewal of quarry lease to the Petitioner herein for a period of 20 years w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and accordingly vide Proceedings No.505/R&L/2015, dated 17.11.2022 of the 4th Respondent herein lease deed was also executed and work order issued in favour of the Petitioner very clearly observing that the period of lease is 20 years w.e.f. 01.04.2021 up to 31.03.2041. 11. It is further the case of the Petitioner that when a show cause notice dated 28.09.2016 was issued to the Petitioner herein on the subject issue that on inspection of the quarry on 28.01.2016, 29.01.2016 and 05.02.2016 it was noticed that the stone in metal had been excavated and transported outside the quarry lease in Sy.No.132, of Rudraram Village and Sy.No.738 of Lakdram Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, Petitioner vide his detailed reply dated 02.11.2016 which had been acknowledged by the 4th Respondent herein had clearly explained that one Srimannarayana, a Labour Contractor had been operating the quarry for the last 3 years prior to 2016 and that extraction of material had been carried out by the third party i.e., Srimannarayana without the knowledge, consent or connivance of the Petitioner company and therefore since the said Srimannarayana had committed the offence under the provisions of Mines Act, 1952 appropriate action needs to be initiated as mandated under Sections 77 and 78 of the Mines Act, 1952. However without considering the said explanation of the Petitioner dated 02.11.2016 in response to the show cause dated 28.09.2016 issued to the Petitioner, the impugned proceedings dated 15.11.2016 vide Demand Notice No.584/Q3/2000, had been issued against the Petitioner directing the Petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.15,05,040/- towards normal seigniorage fee along with 10 times penalty of Rs.1,50,50,400/-, totaling an amount of Rs.1,65,55,440/- and 30% of District Mineral Fund, 2% State Mineral Exploration Trust and 2% of Income Tax on normal seigniorage fee within 15 days from the date of receipt of the Demand Notice with a further stipulation that failing which necessary action would be initiated as per T.S.M.M.C. Rules 1966 and for recovery of amounts under Revenue Recovery Act, without any further notice. Aggrieved by the same Petitioner had filed Revision Petition before the 1st Respondent herein and the 1st Respondent vide Memo No.2262/M.I(2)/2017-4, dated 23.08.2017 disposed of the revision petition filed under Rule 35A of the Telangana State Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. It is further the case of the Petitioner that aggrieved by the same, in the year 2017 Petitioner approached the Court by filing W.P.No.31963/2017 questioning the orders of the Respondent No.1, dated 23.08.2017 dismissing the revision application filed by the Petitioner confirming the Demand Notice No.584/Q3/2000, dated 15.11.2016. The said Writ Petition No.31963/2017 was allowed by the Hon’ble Court vide orders dated 23.01.2023 directing the Respondents to conduct a survey with notice to the Petitioner and relocate the area which has been excavated by the Labour Contractor and re-quantify the metal extracted and also reconsider the issue of levy of penalty on the Petitioner. The said order dated 23.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.31963/2017 was further modified vide order dated 09.03.2023 in I.A.No.1/2023 in W.P.No.31963/2017 where under the impugned order in revision dated 23.08.2017 of the 1st Respondent had been set aside. 12. It is further the case of the Petitioner that however without considering the orders of this Court dt. The said order dated 23.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.31963/2017 was further modified vide order dated 09.03.2023 in I.A.No.1/2023 in W.P.No.31963/2017 where under the impugned order in revision dated 23.08.2017 of the 1st Respondent had been set aside. 12. It is further the case of the Petitioner that however without considering the orders of this Court dt. 09.03.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.31963 of 2017, the present order impugned vide Demand Notice No.584/Q/2000, dated 01.06.2023 issued by the 4th Respondent had been passed again in a routine mechanical manner by the 1st Respondent herein, aggrieved by the same the Petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition and seeking setting aside of the said impugned order dated 01.06.2023 on the ground that the Petitioner’s explanation dated 17.06.2023 which had a very specific plea that the Petitioner never conducted the quarry operations outside the leased area at any point of time and there was no evidence on record to co-relate and establish that the pits developed outside were conducted/ developed by the Petitioner herein and purely on the statement of one Sri V.Srimannarayana the order impugned had been passed against the Petitioner, since the act alleged had been done by the Petitioner had not been proved at all the Petitioner had no liability to pay the amount as demanded by the impugned Demand Notice No.584/Q/2000, dated 01.06.2023 issued by the 4th Respondent and therefore the Petitioner prayed that the writ petition has to be allowed as prayed for and the 4th Respondent should forthwith issue dispatch permits to the Petitioner permitting the Petitioner to operate the quarry for building stone and road metal over an extent of 1.69 hectares in Sy.No.132 situated at Rudraram Village and over an extent of 3.27 hectares in Sy.No.738 situated at Lakadaram Village, Patancheruvu Mandal, Medak District. 13. The Counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.4 in particular paras 7, 8 and 9 indicate the stand of the 4th Respondent that pursuance to the order of the High Court by giving due notice to the leaseholder survey had been conducted on 03.04.2023 and further show cause notice dated 01.06.2023 was issued to the Petitioner by duly considering the reply of the Petitioner dated 17.06.2023 to the said show cause notice dt. 01.06.2023, the present order impugned had been passed and therefore the order impugned is legal and warrants no interference. 01.06.2023, the present order impugned had been passed and therefore the order impugned is legal and warrants no interference. Hence it is contended by the 4th Respondent that the writ petition needs to be dismissed. CONCLUSION : 14. A bare perusal of the order impugned Demand Notice No.584/Q/2000, dated 01.06.2023 issued by the 4th Respondent indicates that there is absolutely no consideration about the explanation of the Petitioner dated 17.06.2023 submitted by the Petitioner in response to the Show Cause Notice No.584/Q/2000, dated 01.06.2023 issued by the 4th Respondent herein. It is evident on record that the specific contention of the Petitioner put-forth in her earlier explanation dated 02.11.2016 submitted in response to the show cause notice dated 28.09.2016 and reiterated in the latest explanation dated 17.06.2023 that the Petitioner had nothing to do with the alleged quarrying operations outside the leased area and it is the third party i.e., one Sri V. Srimannarayana who had in fact indulged in the said act had not been considered at all by the 4th Respondent and the order impugned had been passed by the 4th Respondent without even discussing the said plea raised by the Petitioner and without even arriving at a finding and a reasonable conclusion on the said plea raised by the Petitioner. 15. This Court opines that the order impugned i.e., Demand Notice No.584/Q/2000, dated 01.06.2023 issued by the 4th Respondent had been whimsically passed by the 4th Respondent without visible application of mind and without recording reasons. This Court is of the firm opinion that a very serious issue, a decision pertaining to the quantum of penalty to be levied cannot be done in a routine, casual manner erroneously by the 4th Respondent without the 4th Respondent discharging the responsibility to disclosing the reasons therefor. This Court is of the firm opinion that a very serious issue, a decision pertaining to the quantum of penalty to be levied cannot be done in a routine, casual manner erroneously by the 4th Respondent without the 4th Respondent discharging the responsibility to disclosing the reasons therefor. This Court opines that the 4th Respondent has to necessarily act taking into consideration Sec.77 of the Mines Act, 1952 (referred to and extracted above) when the Petitioner raised a specific plea in Petitioner’s earlier explanation dated 02.11.2016 issued in response to Show Cause No.584/Q3/2000, dated 28.09.2016 pertaining to the same subject issue and further reiterated in the latest explanation dated 17.06.2023 submitted by the Petitioner in response to the Show Cause Notice No.584/Q/2000, dated 01.06.2023 issued by the 4th Respondent in pursuance to the orders of this Court dated 09.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.31963 of 2017 that third party had indulged in the said quarrying operation outside the leased area and the Petitioner had nothing to do with the said act and the same was done behind the back of the Petitioner had been totally ignored by the 4th Respondent herein. 16. This Court opines that the 4th Respondent herein as a Statutory Authority has to discharge its role and responsibility in the scheme of statutory adjudication and cannot mechanically pass an order fixing the liability upon the Petitioner without assigning any reasons, without considering the explanations submitted by the Writ Petitioner dated 02.11.2016 and 17.06.2023 and without giving credence to Section 77 of the Mines Act, 1952 and without providing reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner had admittedly acted in clear violation of principles of natural justice. 17. 17. Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances the order impugned i.e., Demand Notice No.584/Q/2000, dated 01.06.2023 issued by the 4th Respondent herein is set aside and further taking into consideration the proceedings dated 24.08.2022 vide Proceeding No.R/SNR/0042 of the 3rd Respondent herein and the work order issued to the Petitioner by the 4th Respondent herein vide Proceedings No.505/RQL/2015, dated 17.11.2022 which is in force, for the lease period w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2041 for conducting quarrying operations for building stone and road metal over an extent of 1.69 hectares in Sy.No.132 situated at Rudraram Village and over an extent of 3.27 hectares in Sy.No.738 situated at Lakadaram Village, Patancheruvu Mandal, Medak District, and duly considering the fact as borne on record that, the lease period of the petitioner is subsisting till 31.03.2041 and therefore, the 4th respondent is bound to issue dispatch permits to the petitioner to operate the quarry for building stone and road metal in the subject area and the 4th Respondent cannot deny the same to the Petitioner herein on the ground that demand notice has been issued to the Petitioner and the said issue is pending, therefore permits cannot be issued to the Petitioner as stated in para 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the 4th Respondent herein, this Court opines that the said plea of the 4th Respondent is totally unsustainable and hence rejected. The 4th Respondent is directed to forthwith issue dispatch permits to the petitioner herein to operate the quarry for building stone and road metal over an extent of 1.69 hectares in Sy.No.132 situated at Rudraram Village and over an extent of 3.27 hectares in Sy.No.738 situated at Lakadaram Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. 18. It is however observed that it is open to the 4th Respondent to proceed afresh in the matter by giving reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner, in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice, duly considering the provisions of Mines Act, 1952 in particular Section 77 of the Mines Act, 1952 and pass appropriate reasoned speaking order. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.