Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 74 (TS)

Kisan Stone Crusher v. State of Telangana

2025-02-25

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Court vide order dated 14.11.2023 allowed this Writ Petition. However, upon Review Application (I.A. No. 1 of 2024) being filed by respondents, vide order dated 31.01.2025, this Court allowed the same and recalled the order dated 14.11.2023 with a direction to respondents to file counter affidavit in the Writ Petition. After filing counter by the State and reply by petitioner, this Court has taken up the present Writ Petition for final disposal with the consent of both the parties. 2. The case of petitioner is that pursuant to the Application made for grant of quarry lease for building stone & road metal over an extent of 1.00 Hectares in Sy.No.85 of Regulachelaka Village, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District, quarry lease was granted in their favour for 15 years by the 3rd respondent on 26.11.2004. Accordingly, work orders were issued by the 4th respondent on 03.12.2004 and the lease was in force till 2.12.2019. Petitioner applied for renewal of Quarry lease on 17.04.2018 as per the provisions of the Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’) and it is under consideration with the 3rd respondent. They being the Class-I contractor, is in need of mineral building stone and metal for laying roads and construction of buildings; for the effective operation of the quarry lease and for optimum utilization of the extracted mineral, petitioner had also established Stone Crusher unit for captive purpose which is being operated under the name and style of "M/s. Kisan Stone Crusher" in the nearby locality in the patta land in Sy.Nos.179,102 of Mallimadugu Village, Khammam District with unit capacity 200 TPH and it is in running condition. While things stood thus, petitioner was served with show cause notice dated 16.09.2020 under Rules 34 and 26(2) of 1966 Rules by the 4th respondent. It is alleged that petitioner indulged in illegal extraction of mineral to the quantity of about 1,14,398 M3 of stone & metal. Petitioner gave reply notice dated 29.09.2020, however, without considering the same, the impugned notice was issued wherein the Petitioner is asked to pay an amount of Rs.9,43,79,164/- including Normal Seigniorage fee of Rs.85,79,924/- along with 10 times penalty of Rs.8,57,99,240/- for the alleged mineral extracted outside the lease area for excavated quantity of 1,14,398 M3 of building stone and road metal. Challenging the impugned demand notice, petitioner preferred Revision before the 1 st respondent on 06.11.2020. Challenging the impugned demand notice, petitioner preferred Revision before the 1 st respondent on 06.11.2020. Seigniorage fee was deducted by the Government (Engineering Department) from the bills of contractor for the mineral consumed for Government works as per G.O.Ms.No.23, 1 & CAD Department, dated 05.03.1999. Though the said fact was brought to the notice of the revision authority along with the documentary evidence, without considering the same, they disposed of the revision in routine manner asking petitioner to pay normal Seigniorage fee along with one time penalty. It is further directed that the 4th respondent should consider the Application for regularizing the unauthorized occupation as per rules. It is contended by petitioner that the impugned revision order dated 30.08.2022 issued by the 1 st respondent and the consequential letter dated 05.09.2022 issued by the 4 th respondent are arbitrary and illegal as the Respondent authorities do not have any power to impose or levy penalty against the mine owners in pursuance of Sections 21 , 22 and 23A of MMDR Act, 1957. That the culpability of the person accused of violating the provisions of the Act or Rules is to be determined by the court of competent criminal jurisdiction. To support the said contention, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petitions No. 8390 of 2018 and batch dated 30.09.2022. In similar circumstances, the revisional authority vide Memo dated 10.11.2022 waived off the penalty and the revision applicant was asked to pay 60% of the normal Seigniorage fee only. In one another similar case, Revision Authority ordered to reconcile the documentary evidence submitted by petitioner. The Respondent authorities cannot discriminate among the equals by passing different orders. That the quarry lease was originally granted with the physical demarcation of the area by adopting the chain system, while the present inspection of quarry lease, considered by ETS and DGPS methods and hence there is a discrepancy of measurements for which the petitioner cannot be made to suffer as they had been carrying out the quarry operations within the boundaries of leased area and there is no illegal excavation. Petitioner had bona fidely requested to drop the action proposed in the show cause dated 16.10.2020 expressing discrepancy in survey and measurement and it is not taken into consideration. Petitioner had bona fidely requested to drop the action proposed in the show cause dated 16.10.2020 expressing discrepancy in survey and measurement and it is not taken into consideration. It is stated, at no point of time, petitioner was caught red- handedly for transporting mineral illegally or for illegal excavation, hence the allegation of illegal excavation is baseless. It is further contended that in view of the time-bound works and compelling situations, the extracted mineral is consumed for Government civil works wherein Seigniorage fee has been deducted from work bills of contract works awarded to petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.23, I & CAD Department, dated 05.03.1999. Accordingly, the documents in support of the same were submitted for reconciliation but Respondents 1 and 4 have not considered the same properly. The impugned notice dated 05-09-2022 issued on the basis of revision order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the 1 st respondent No.1 is contrary to the Memo dated 22.12.2015 and circular memo dated 22.01.2016 issued by the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, wherein, it is categorically stated that "There could not be double recovery of Seigniorage charges and while imposing the penalty, the mining department shall take into consideration deduction of Seigniorage Fee from the bills of the contractors by the consuming departments viz., R&B, Panchayat. That the quarry operated by petitioner is bona fidely within the granted quarry lease area and at no point of time, respondent officials have identified the pits outside the lease area, hence the allegation of extraction of mineral outside the quarry area is baseless. That imposing a penalty of normal Seigniorage fee along with one time penalty is not supported by law and the action of respondents is arbitrary and biased as in the similar circumstances indifferent orders are passed. Executive Engineer (R&B), NH Division, Khammam, vide letter dated 14.07.2022, while addressing the 4 th respondent categorically certified that petitioner consumed 1,27,325 M3 of metal for the works awarded for which seigniorage fee of Rs.95,49,212/- has been deducted and the said fact is not taken into consideration. In the light of the above contentions, petitioner prays for allowing the Writ Petition. 3. In the light of the above contentions, petitioner prays for allowing the Writ Petition. 3. On the other hand, while admitting issuance of quarry lease, etcetera, it was contended on behalf of respondents that petitioner filed Application for renewal of Quarry Lease on 17.04.2018 that for processing the Application, a detailed survey and inspection was proposed and accordingly, M/s Chaitanya Geo-Surveys empanelled agency had conducted ETS survey of the subject Quarry leased area on 25-12-2018 and found that petitioner conducted operations outside the leased area as per the executed sketch. Further, the empanelled agency submitted ETS draft maps on 21.07.2020 & finalized ETS maps on 20.08.2020 and quantified the quantity of the mineral extracted from the pits developed by petitioner within and outside leased area and submitted reports to ADM&G, Khammam. As per ETS survey report and maps, ADM&G, Khammam issued show cause notice dated 16.09.2020 to petitioner who submitted reply dated 29.09.2020 requesting to drop further course of action to avoid irreparable loss mentally, physically and financially as there is no revenue loss to the Department. Dissatisfied, respondents issued demand notice. In the Revision. a reasoned and speaking order was passed as per Rules to collect normal seigniorage fee along with one time penalty and disposed the revision application. It was specifically contended that the 1957 Act, as amended from time to time, is a Principle Act, Section 15 of the Act empowers the State Governments to frame rules for regulating minor minerals. Accordingly, every State has formulated Rules for regulating minor minerals in their respective State jurisdiction, specifically providing for collection of penalty from violators under Section 21 (5) which empowers to collect penalty from the persons who raises any mineral from any land without any lawful authority. Therefore, the contentions of Petitioner that Rule 26 is derogative and contrary to the provisions of the principal Act is false and baseless. In the similar manner, the State Governments have also incorporated penalty provision in the regulation of minor minerals while framing the Minor Mineral concession Rules 1966 and this Court also confirmed the validity of Rule 26 in L. Venkateshwar Rao v. M/s Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. 1993 (3) ALT 199 (FB). In the similar manner, the State Governments have also incorporated penalty provision in the regulation of minor minerals while framing the Minor Mineral concession Rules 1966 and this Court also confirmed the validity of Rule 26 in L. Venkateshwar Rao v. M/s Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. 1993 (3) ALT 199 (FB). It was specifically contended that petitioner did not choose to challenge the validity of Rule 26 and without doing so, they cannot canvass that implementation of the Rule is bad in law and contrary to the rule-making power granted by virtue of Section 15 of the 1957 Act. As per Section 21 (2),(3) and (5), the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.161, dated 24.03.1980 empowering the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology to levy penalty for Major Minerals. Further, the penalty levied under 199 Rule 26 of 1966 Rules is with respect to minor minerals only and accordingly, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.643, dated 27.11.1980 empowering the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology and Assistant Director of Mines & Geology to levy penalty for Mineral Minerals. Insofar as major minerals is concerned, the provisions governing the field are under MMDR Act 1957 and in so far as the minor minerals are concerned, the provisions governing the field are Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966. Therefore, respondent authorities do have power to impose or levy penalty. Further the order dated 30.09.2022 in Writ Petition No. 8390 of 2018 and batch is not applicable for the present case as in the said case the issue with respect to applicability of MMDR Act insofar as minor minerals is concerned is not at all dealt with. The revisional authority, taking into consideration the facts of each case, disposed the Revision accordingly as per Rules. The circumstance/facts of both cases are not similar as alleged by petitioner. Therefore, interpretations made by petitioner are not correct, hence denied. There will not be any deviation to the executed sketch and the total extent as per the grant. In the instant case, petitioner conducted quarry operations outside the leased area by illegal encroachment, hence, reply was not considered. It was further contended that as per Rule 10 (3)(b) of the 1966 Rules, petitioner has to pay seigniorage fee before removal of mineral from the leased area; they violated the said Rule and transported the mineral without valid permit. Hence, the ADM&G issued the demand as per Rules. It was further contended that as per Rule 10 (3)(b) of the 1966 Rules, petitioner has to pay seigniorage fee before removal of mineral from the leased area; they violated the said Rule and transported the mineral without valid permit. Hence, the ADM&G issued the demand as per Rules. Petitioner transported the mineral by violating Rules 10(3)(b) and 34(1). It was further contended that this Court in similar circumstances passed orders dated 29.04.2024 in Writ Petition No.14510 of 2023 wherein it is held that the case law of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh referred to by petitioner is not applicable for the facts of the present case as, admittedly, Government of Andhra Pradesh amended Minor Mineral Concession Rules and the demand notice was issued as per the amended rules. 4. Petitioner filed reply stating that so far as legal position with regard to the power of mining authorities to impose penalties is concerned, Section 21 (5) of the 1957 Act does not empower the mining authorities to collect penalty. The validity of Rule 26 was confirmed by a Full Bench of the High Court of combined State of Andhra Pradesh in L. Venkateswara Rao’s . Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Rear Earth v. Senior Geologist, Department of Mines & Geology, 2004 (2) SCC 783 held that sub-sections (1), (2), (4), (4A) and (6) of Section 21 are in the realm of criminal law. In view of the said finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, mining authorities have no power to impose any penalty and have to follow the procedure prescribed in Section 22 . It is further contended that the quantum of penalty is also prescribed in Section 21 , as such the State Government being conferred with power to make rules in respect of minor minerals cannot make any rule contrary to Section 21 . A plain reading of Section 21 (5) clearly shows that the same does not confer any power on the official respondents to impose any penalty. The contention of the 2nd respondent that Section 21 (5) empowers mining authorities to impose penalties is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Rear Earth’s case. A plain reading of Section 21 (5) clearly shows that the same does not confer any power on the official respondents to impose any penalty. The contention of the 2nd respondent that Section 21 (5) empowers mining authorities to impose penalties is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Rear Earth’s case. It was further contended that power of the State Government to make rules with regard to penalties for violation of Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 framed under Section 15 and 23C of MMDR Act is controlled by Section 21 of the MMDR Act. It was contended that when the power is conferred by a statute and the manner in which such power has to be exercised is also prescribed in the said statute, exercise of such power in any other manner is prohibited ( State of U.P. Vs. Singhara Singh , AIR 1965 SC 358 ) . In the absence of challenge to Rule 26, petitioner is not entitled to raise the contention that mines authorities have no jurisdiction, is contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shree Bhagwati Sreel Rolling Mills vs. CCE , 2016 (3) SCC 643 . The contention of the 2 nd respondent that Section 21 pertains to regularising Major Minerals and Rule 26 pertains to minor minerals is contrary to the language of Section 21 . In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Rare Earth Case , 2004 (2) SCC 783 the judgement of Full Bench in L. Venkateswara Rao Case has no application. There is no provision in MMDR Act which excludes Minor Minerals from the scope and ambit of Section 21 . The said contention of the 2 nd respondent is contrary to Section 14 of the 1957 Act. It is not out of place to submit that except Section 14 which specifically excludes application of Sections 5 to 13 (inclusive) to Minor Minerals, there is no other provision excluding Minor Minerals from application of Section-21, 22 & 23A of MMDR Act 1957. As such, except those Sections, all other sections are applicable to Minor Minerals. The 2 nd respondent cannot read words into Section 21 of MMDR Act and the same is not permissible as per settled law, as such the impugned demand notice issued by the 4threspondent is without jurisdiction. As such, except those Sections, all other sections are applicable to Minor Minerals. The 2 nd respondent cannot read words into Section 21 of MMDR Act and the same is not permissible as per settled law, as such the impugned demand notice issued by the 4threspondent is without jurisdiction. 5. While making the above submissions, petitioners have also relied upon the following decisions: i) Competent Authority vs. Barangore Factory & Others, (2005) 13 SCC 477 ii) Addl. District Magistrate vs. Siri Ram , (2000) 5 SCC 451 iii) ITW Signode India Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise , (2004) 3 SCC 48 iv) Govt of T.N. vs. Park View Enterprises , (2001) 1 SCC 742 6. Heard Sri Sharath, learned counsel appearing for Sri G. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General and perused the record. 7. Before dealing with the issue on hand, it is germane to refer to the relevant provisions of both the MMDR Act, 1957 as well as T.S Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1966 to understand the purport of the enactment of the provisions of the Act and Rules. MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957 S.4. Prospecting or mining operations to be under licence or lease: (1) No person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect any prospecting or mining operations undertaken in any area in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act which is in force at such commencement. Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any prospecting operations undertaken by the Geological Survey of India, the Indian Bureau of Mines [the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research] of the Department of Atomic Energy of the Central Government, the Directorates of Mining and Geology of any State Government (by whatever name called) and the Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, a Government Company within the meaning of [clause (45) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013, and any such entity that may be notified for this purpose by the Central Government] Provided also that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any mining lease (whether called mining lease, mining concession or by any other name) in force immediately before the commencement of this Act in the Union territory of Goa, Daman and Diu. (1A) No person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. (2) No reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease] shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. (3) Any State Government may, after prior consultation with the Central Government and in accordance with the rules made under Section 18 [undertake reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations with respect to any mineral specified in the First Schedule in any area within that State which is not already held under any reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease] S.13 Power of Central Government to make rules in respect of minerals: (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for regulating the grant of [reconnaissance permits, prospecting licences and mining leases] in respect of minerals and for purposes connected therewith. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- (a) the person by whom, and the manner in which, applications for [reconnaissance permits, prospecting licences or mining leases] in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the Government may be made and the fees to be paid therefor; (b) the time within which, and the form in which, acknowledgement of the receipt of any such application may be sent; (c) the matters which may be considered where applications in respect of the same land are received on the same day; (d) the terms and conditions of auction by competitive bidding for selection of the company under section 11A; (e) the authority by which [reconnaissance permits, prospecting licences or mining leases] in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the Government may be granted; (f) the procedure for obtaining [a reconnaissance permit, a prospecting licence or a mining lease] in respect of any land in which the minerals vest in a person other than the Government and the terms on which, and the conditions subject to which, such [a permit, licence or lease] may be granted or renewed; (g) the terms on which, and the conditions subject to which, any other [reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease] may be granted or renewed; (h) the facilities to be afforded by holders of mining leases to persons deputed by the Government for the purpose of undertaking research or training in matters relating to mining operations; (i) the fixing and collection of fees for [reconnaissance permits, prospecting licences or mining leases], surface rent, security deposit, fines, other fees or charges and the time within which and the manner in which the dead rent or royalty shall be payable; (j) the manner in which rights of third parties may be protected (whether by payment of compensation or otherwise) in cases where any such party may be prejudicially affected by reason of any [reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations]; (jj) parameters of existence of mineral contents under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 5. (k) the grouping of associated minerals for the purposes of section 6; (l) the manner in which, and the conditions subject to which [a reconnaissance permit, a prospecting licence or a mining lease] may be transferred; (m) the construction, maintenance and use of roads, power transmission lines, tramways, railways, aerial ropeways, pipelines and the making of passages for water for mining purposes on any land comprised in a mining lease; (n) the form of registers to be maintained under this Act; (o) (omitted); (p) the reports and statements to be submitted by holders of [reconnaissance permits or prospecting licences] or owners of mines and the authority to which such reports and statements shall be submitted; (q) the period within which applications for revision of any order passed by a State Government or other authority in exercise of any power conferred by or under this Act, may be made, the fees to be paid therefor and the documents which shall accompany such applications and the manner in which such applications shall be disposed of; (qq) the manner in which rehabilitation of flora and other vegetation, such as trees, shrubs and the like destroyed by reason of any prospecting or mining operations shall be made in the same area or in any other area selected by the Central Government (whether by way of reimbursement of the cost of rehabilitation or otherwise) by the person holding the prospecting licence or mining lease; [ (qqa) the amount of payment to be made to the District Mineral Foundation under sub-section (5) and (6) of section 9B; (qqb) the manner of usage of funds accrued to the National Mineral Exploration Trust under sub-section (2) of section 9C; (qqc) the composition and functions of the National Mineral Exploration Trust under sub-section (3) of section 9C; (qqd) the manner of payment of amount to the National Mineral Exploration Trust under sub-section (4) of section 9C; (qqe) the terms and conditions subject to which mining leases shall be granted under sub-section (3) of section 10B; (qqf) the terms and conditions and procedure, subject to which the auction shall be conducted including the bidding parameters for the selection under sub-section (5) of section 10B; (qqg) the time limits for various stages in processing applications for grant of mining lease or prospecting licence-cum-mining lease under sections 10B, 11, 11A, 11B, and section 17A, and their renewals; (qqh) the terms and conditions for grant of non-exclusive reconnaissance permits under sub-section (1) of section 10C; (qqi) the terms and conditions for grant of prospecting licence-cum-mining leases under sub-section (4) of section 11; (qqj) the terms and conditions, and procedure, including the bidding parameters for the selection under sub-section (6) of section 11; [(qqja) the terms and conditions and amount or transfer charges under the proviso to sub-section (6) of section 12A]; (qqk) the amount to be payable by a Government company or corporation, or a joint venture for grant of mining lease under sub-section (2C) of section 17A. (r) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed under this Act. S.14. [ Sections 5 to 13] not to apply to minor minerals: The provisions of sections 5 to 13 (inclusive) shall not apply to quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals. S.15. Power of State Governments to make rules in respect of minor minerals: (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. S.15. Power of State Governments to make rules in respect of minor minerals: (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. (1A) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- (a) the person by whom and the manner in which, applications for quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions may be made and the fees to be paid therefor; (b) the time within which, and the form in which, acknowledgement of the receipt of any such applications may be sent; (c) the matters which may be considered where applications in respect of the same land are received within the same day; (d) the terms on which, and the conditions subject to which and the authority by which quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions may be granted or renewed; (e) the procedure for obtaining quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions; (f) the facilities to be afforded by holders of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions to persons deputed by the Government for the purpose of undertaking research or training in matters relating to mining operations; (g) the fixing and collection of rent, royalty, fees, dead rent, fines or other charges and the time within which and the manner in which these shall be payable; (h) the manner in which the rights of third parties may be protected (whether by way of payment of compensation or otherwise) in cases where any such party is prejudicially affected by reason of any prospecting or mining operations; (i) the manner in which the rehabilitation of flora and other vegetation, such as trees, shrubs and the like destroyed by reasons of any quarrying or mining operations shall be made in the same area or in any other area selected by the State Government (whether by way of reimbursement of the cost of rehabilitation or otherwise) by the person holding the quarrying or mining lease; (j) the manner in which and the conditions subject to which, a quarry lease, mining lease or other mineral concession may be transferred; (k) the construction, maintenance and use of roads, power transmission lines, tramways, railways, aerial ropeways, pipelines and the making of passage for water for mining purposes on any land comprised in a quarry or mining lease or other mineral concession; (l) the form of registers to be maintained under this Act; (m) the reports and statements to be submitted by holders of quarry or mining leases or other mineral concessions and the authority to which such reports and statements shall be submitted; (n) the period within which and the manner in which and the authority to which applications for revision of any order passed by any authority under these rules may be made, the fees to be paid therefor, and the powers of the revisional authority; (o) any other matter which is to be, or may be prescribed. (2) Until rules are made under sub-section (1), any rules made by a State Government regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals which are in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall continue in force. (3) The holder of a mining lease or any other mineral concession granted under any rule made under subsection (1) shall pay royalty or dead rent, whichever is more in respect of minor minerals removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee at the rate prescribed for the time being in the rules framed by the State Government in respect of minor minerals: Provided that the State Government shall not enhance the rate of royalty or dead rent in respect of any minor mineral for more than once during any period of three years. (4) Without prejudice to sub-sections (1), (2) and sub-section (3), the State Government may, by notification, make rules for regulating the provisions of this Act for the following, namely:- (a) the manner in which the District Mineral Foundation shall work for the interest and benefit of persons and areas affected by mining under sub-section (2) of section 9B; (b) the composition and functions of the District Mineral Foundation under sub-section (3) of section 9B; (d) the amount of payment to be made to the District Mineral Foundation by concession holders of minor minerals under section 15A. Section 21 .Penalties: (1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area. Section 21 .Penalties: (1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area. (2) Any rule made under any provision of this Act may provide that any contravention thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both, and in the case of a continuing contravention, with additional fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention.” (3) Where any person trespasses into any land in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4, such trespasser may be served with an order of eviction by the State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by that Government and the State Government or such authorised authority may, if necessary, obtain the help of the police to evict the trespasser from the land. (4) Whenever any person raises, transports or causes to be raised or transported, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, and, for that purpose, uses any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing, such mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing shall be liable to be seized by an officer or authority specially empowered in this behalf. (4A) Any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing seized under sub-section (4), shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the court competent to take cognizance of the offence under sub-section (1) and shall be disposed of in accordance with the directions of such court. (5) Whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, the State Government may recover from such person the mineral so raised, or, where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, for the period during which the land was occupied by such person without any lawful authority. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence under sub-section (1) shall be cognizable. S.22. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence under sub-section (1) shall be cognizable. S.22. Cognizance of offences: No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 “Rule 76. Penalty: (1) Any person who contravenes sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of rule 7, sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of rule 14, sub-rules (1) and (2) of rule 16, rules 18, 19, 22A, sub-rule (1) of rule 22 (E), rule 22F, sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of rule 27, rules 27A and 29A, sub-rule(1) of rule 37, rules 40D, 42, 44 to 51, sub-rule (1) of rule 62, rules 66, 66A and 72 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both, and in the case of continuing contravention, with additional fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for such contravention. (2) Any person who contravenes rules 20, 21B, sub-rules (1), (2), (4), (5) and (6) of rule 22B, rules 32, 33, 37A and 40B, second proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 40E, rules61 and 64Ashall be punishable with fine which may extend to five lakhs rupees, and in the case of a continuing contravention, with additional fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for such contravention.” TELANGANA STATE MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 1966 “Rule 5. Quarrying to be under lease or permit:– No person shall undertake quarrying of any minor mineral in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a quarry lease or a permit granted under these rules : Provided that the Government shall have power to grant exemption from obtaining a lease or permit for quarrying any minor mineral in any area in the case of any category of persons, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order granting such exemption. Rule 26. Rule 26. Penalty for unauthorised quarrying: – (1) If any person carries on quarrying operations or transports minor minerals in contravention of these rules, he shall be liable to pay as penalty, such enhanced seigniorage fee together with assessments as may be imposed by an Officer nominated by the Director of Mines and Geology. (2) Whenever any person raises or transports minor minerals without any lawful authority, such minerals may be seized by an Officer nominated by the Director of Mines and Geology in this behalf in addition to the imposition of the penalty under sub-rule (1) : Provided that in no case, the penalty shall exceed [ten times] the normal seigniorage fee and the lease or permit already granted may, at the discretion of the Deputy Director, be liable to be terminated or cancelled. (3)(i) For the purpose of ascertaining the position of payment of Mineral Revenue due to the Government or for any other purpose under these rules, the person authorised under sub-rule (2) may: (a) enter and inspect any premises; (b) survey and take measurements; (c) weigh, measure or take measurements of stocks of minerals; (d) examine any document, book, register or record in the possession or power of any person having the control of, or connected with any mineral including the processed mineral and place marks of identification thereon and take extracts from, or make copies of such document, book, register or record; (e) order the production of any such document, book, register, record as is referred in Clause (d). (ii) If no documentary proof is produced in token of having paid the mineral revenue due to the Government by any person who used or consumed or in possession of any mineral including the processed mineral, he shall notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) be liable to pay [five times] of the normal seigniorage fee as penalty in addition to normal seigniorage fee leviable under the rules. Explanation:– It shall be competent to the officer nominated by the Director of Mines and Geology to determine the question whether quarrying operation or transportation of minerals are carried or not within the meaning of this rule. (4) The applicant/applicant company convicted for an offence relating to unauthorised mining/quarrying of minor minerals shall be debarred/disqualified for getting new Quarry Lease or renewal of the existing Quarry Lease for a period of ten (10) years. Rule 34. (4) The applicant/applicant company convicted for an offence relating to unauthorised mining/quarrying of minor minerals shall be debarred/disqualified for getting new Quarry Lease or renewal of the existing Quarry Lease for a period of ten (10) years. Rule 34. Despatch permit:– (1) No minor mineral shall be dispatched from any of the leased areas without a valid permit issued by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology concerned or an officer authorized in this behalf by the Director of Mines and Geology: Provided that any misuse of the transit forms without paying Seigniorage Fee and not accompanied by the transit forms used by the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology concerned or an officer authorized in this behalf by the Director of Mines & Geology and any other contravention, shall result in forfeiture of Security Deposit and levy of normal Seigniorage Fee along with "five times" penalty by the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology concerned or the Officer as authorized by the Director of Mines & Geology. (2) The application for the despatch permit under sub-rule (1) shall be made by the lessee to the Assistant Director concerned in Form-K by duly enclosing challans towards advance payment of seigniorage fee for the proposed quantity to be despatched atleast ten days before the proposed date of despatch of the mineral. The permit shall be issued by the competent authority in Form L: (3) Those who are covering under Rule 10(5) shall obtain dispatch permits from the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology concerned in FormL1 duly filing application in Form-Kl for procuring material from the lease hold source by duly paying the Seigniorage Fee under Schedule III of these rules. The dispatch permits shall be issued for a period proportionate to the amounts paid by them, but for a period not less than one month. However they shall invariably procure the raw material from the authorized licenses/lessees concerned for respective mineral under the provision of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. In case they resort for unauthorized quarrying they are liable for action under Rule 26 of these rules. (4) In case of units under 10(5)(1) if declared sick for a period exceeding six months shall represent to Assistant Director of Mines and Geology by duly paying Rs.1,000/- and concerned Deputy Director of Mines and Geology will enquire and pass orders. Rule. 35. (4) In case of units under 10(5)(1) if declared sick for a period exceeding six months shall represent to Assistant Director of Mines and Geology by duly paying Rs.1,000/- and concerned Deputy Director of Mines and Geology will enquire and pass orders. Rule. 35. Appeal:— An appeal against any order passed by the Assistant Director or Deputy Director [Joint Director] under these rules shall lie to the Director within a period of two months from the date of communication of such order to the party aggrieved and an appeal against an order of the Director shall be to the Government in like manner. Rule 35-A. Revision: The Government may either suomotu at any time or on an application made within ninety days, call for and examine the record relating to any order passed or proceeding taken by the Director [Joint Director], Deputy Director or Assistant Director under these rules for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of such proceedings and pass such order in reference thereto as they think fit : Provided that no order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this rule unless such person has been given an opportunity of making his representation. Explanation:– For purposes of this rule where a Deputy Director has failed to dispose of an application for the grant or renewal of a quarry lease within the period specified in respect thereof under these rules, the Deputy Director shall be deemed to have made an order refusing the grant or renewal of such lease on the date on which such period expires. 8. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court gives its finding as under: Firstly, it is to be noted that Section 21 of the 1957 Act speaks about the penalties i.e. whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of Section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to Rs.5 lacs per hectare of the area. Further, Section 4(1) stipulates that no person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, a mining lease, granted under this Act and the Rules made thereunder. Further, Section 4(1) stipulates that no person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, a mining lease, granted under this Act and the Rules made thereunder. Section 4 (1A) speaks that no person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. Section 14 of the 1957 Act clearly stipulates that the provisions of Sections 5 to 13 (inclusive) shall not apply to quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals. Section 15 empowers the State Governments to make rules in respect of minor minerals. It is pertinent to note that Section 15 (1) speaks that the State Government may, by notification, in the Official Gazette, make Rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith; Section 15 (1A) (g) clearly speaks that such rules may provide for fixing and collection of rent, royalty, fees, dead rent, fines or other charges and the time within which and the manner in which these shall be payable. 9. It is also an admitted fact that 1966 Rules came into existence in exercise of powers conferred on State under Section 15 of the 1957 Act. In respect of the minor minerals, the State Government enacted TSMMC Rules, 1966 wherein Rule 26 clearly stipulates for levying penalty for unauthorised quarrying. When the 1957 Act itself permits the State Governments to enact rules and in terms of Section 15 , when the State Government enacted TSMMC Rules, 1966 and levies penalty, if there is any unauthorised quarrying, the same cannot be found improper when there is a source to the authorities to levy penalty insofar as the contravention of 1966 Rules. The action of the respondent authorities in levying penalty is sourced from Section 15 of the MMDR Act, 1957. 10. Section 14 specifically excludes Sections 5 to 13 of the 1957 Act whereby Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 were framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 13 and Rule 76 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 deals with penalties. The action of the respondent authorities in levying penalty is sourced from Section 15 of the MMDR Act, 1957. 10. Section 14 specifically excludes Sections 5 to 13 of the 1957 Act whereby Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 were framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 13 and Rule 76 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 deals with penalties. Rule 76 stipulates that any contravention of the provisions of these Rules shall be punishable in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act. Section 21 (1), as noted above, deals with contravention of sub-section (4). Sub-section (2) of Section 21 deals with the rule-making power specifying the contraventions which are punishable with imprisonment or fine. Sub-section (3) deals with procedure to be followed in case of contravention of sub-section (4). Sub- section (4) says that whenever any person raises, transports or causes to be raised or transported, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, and, for that purpose, uses any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing, such mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing shall be liable to be seized by an officer of authority specially empowered in this behalf. Sub-section 4(A) says that any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing seized under sub-section (4) shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the Court competent to take cognizance of the offense under sub-section (1) and shall be disposed of in accordance with the directions of such Court. However, when it comes to sub-section (5), the same confers powers on the State Government to recover price, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be on any mineral raised. Thus, the State Government is empowered to recover price, tax, royalty or rent only in respect of minor mineral which is in the exclusive domain of the State as per Section 15 of the Act. It is for the said reason, in entire scheme of Section 21 dealing with imprisonment or levy of fine, there is no mention of sub-section (5). At this point, it would be useful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Rear Earth’s case (supra), relied upon by petitioner, wherein, in para 7 it was observed as under: “7. At this point, it would be useful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Rear Earth’s case (supra), relied upon by petitioner, wherein, in para 7 it was observed as under: “7. In our opinion, the demand by the State of Karnataka of the price of the mineral cannot be said to be levy of penalty or a penal action. The marginal note of the section. "penalties" creates a wrong impression. A reading of Section 21 shows that it deals with a variety of situations. Sub-sections (1), (2), (4), (4-A) and (6) are in the realm of criminal law. Sub-section (3) empowers the State Government or any authority authorized in this behalf to summarily evict a trespasser. Sub-section (5) empowers the State Government to recover rent, royalty or tax from the person who has raised the mineral from any land without any lawful authority and also empowers the State Government to recover the price thereof where such mineral has already been disposed of inasmuch as the same would not be available for seizure and confiscation. The provision as to recovery of price is in the nature of recovering the compensation and not penalty so also the power of the State Government to recover rent, royalty or tax in respect of any mineral raised without any lawful authority can also not be called a penal action. The underlying principle of sub-section (5) is that a person acting without any lawful authority must not find himself placed in a position more advantageous than a person raising minerals with lawful authority.” Therefore, Section 21 of the 1957 Act which was mentioned in Rule 76 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (which rule is formulated in exercise of powers conferred under Section 13 of the MMDR Act) is excluded from the purview of Section 15 , as such the levy of penalty by the State in terms of Rule 26 of the 1966 Rules (which rule is formulated in exercise of powers conferred under Section 15 of the MMDR Act, 1957) is in accordance with the power sourced from the statute itself. 11. This Court dismissed Writ Petition No.14510 of 2023 vide order dated 26.04.2024 wherein identical issue has fallen for consideration. 11. This Court dismissed Writ Petition No.14510 of 2023 vide order dated 26.04.2024 wherein identical issue has fallen for consideration. However, in view of the elaborate submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties with respect to the understanding of the provisions of MMDR Act, 1957, Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and TMMC Rules , 1966, this Court is dealing extensively with the same. 12. The present issue is no longer res integra for the reason that Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh had an occasion to deal with the very same issue in L. Venkateswar Rao’s case , relevant paragraphs of which are extracted hereunder for better understanding: “47. In order to appreciate those contentions, let us have a look once again at the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. 48. Section 4 of the Act prohibits the undertaking of any prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting licence, or, as the case may be, a mining lease granted, under the Act. 49. Under Section 13 , the Central Government is conferred power to make rules for regulating the grant of prospecting licence and mining lease in respect of the minerals including the fixing and collection of fees for prospecting licences or mining leases; surface rent, security deposits, fines, other fees or charges and the time within which and the manner in which the dead rent or royalty shall be payable. In the exercise of this power, the Central Government made the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. 50. Sections 5 to 13 do not apply to quarry leases in respect of minor minerals (vide Section 14). As regards the minor minerals, power is conferred on the State Government under Section 15 to make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases and other mineral concessions including the fixing and collection of rent, royalty, fees, dead rent, fines or other charges and the time within which and the manner in which these shall be payable. In exercise of this power the State Government made the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. Rule 5 of these rules prohibits the undertaking of any quarrying of minor minerals in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a quarry lease or a permit granted under the rules. In exercise of this power the State Government made the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. Rule 5 of these rules prohibits the undertaking of any quarrying of minor minerals in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a quarry lease or a permit granted under the rules. This provision relating to minor minerals is similar to the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Act which deals with other minerals. Section 21 deals with penalties. Whoever contravenes the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 4, is liable to be punished with imprisonment or with fine or with both. Under Sub-section (4) of Section 21 , power is conferred on the specified authority to seize any mineral unauthorisedly raised by any person or any equipment or any vehicle used by any person in such unauthorised raising of the mineral. Whenever any person unauthorisedly raises any mineral from any land, the State Government is empowered under Sub-section (5) of Section 21 , to recover from such person, the mineral so raised or where the mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, along with the rent, royalty, or tax, as the case may be, payable for the period during which the land was occupied by such person. For the purpose of ascertaining the position of working of any mine, any person authorised by the Central Government can enter upon and inspect any mine and exercise any of the power conferred upon him under Section 24 of the Act and order the production of any document, book, register or record mentioned therein. 51. So far as the minor minerals are concerned, under Rule 10 of the rules, all minor minerals despatched or consumed from any area in respect of which lease or permit has been granted, are subject to the charge of seigniorage fee or dead rent whichever is higher. To the same effect are the provisions of Section 9 and 9-A of the Act so far as the other minerals are concerned. 52. So far as levy of penalty in respect of minerals other than minor minerals is concerned, apart from Section 21 , Rule 52 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, made by the Central Government provides for penalty. 52. So far as levy of penalty in respect of minerals other than minor minerals is concerned, apart from Section 21 , Rule 52 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, made by the Central Government provides for penalty. It authorises imposition of punishment by way of imprisonment for the contravention of the Rules 46, 47, 49 and 51 relating to the furnishing of documents or information. So far as the minor minerals are concerned, Rule 26 provides for penalty in case of unauthorised quarrying and it puts a ceiling on the penalty which shall not exceed ten times the normal seigniorage fee. Under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 26, any officer nominated by the Director of Mines and Geology is authorised to enter and inspect any premises for the purpose of ascertaining the position of payment of mineral revenue due to the Government and exercise the other powers vested in him under that provision including ordering of production of any documents, books, registers or records mentioned therein. Apart from that, this provision authorises the imposition of penalty upto five times the normal seigniorage fee on any user or consumer or any person in possession of any minor mineral, in case no documentary proof is produced by such person in token of having paid the mineral revenue due in respect of such minor minerals. Clause (xv) of Rule 31 provides that if the seigniorage fee or dead rent payable by the lessee is not paid within three months next after the date fixed in the grant, the concerned authority may enter upon the area under lease and distrain all or any of the mineral belonging to him and standing on the land. Clause (xvii) specifies that the determination of a lease or permit can be effected for violation of conditions mentioned therein, and that all sums paid by the lessee by way of deposit shall be adjusted towards the amounts, if any, due to the Government. 53. It is urged by Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the method and manner of collection of seigniorage fee in respect of minor minerals is prescribed by the State Government under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules on the same lines as prescribed by the Parliament and the Central Government under the Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, respectively in respect of other minerals. But, in the case of unauthorised quarrying of minor minerals, the rules impose a penalty on the user or consumer of the minor minerals who have nothing to do with the unauthorised quarrying, whereas no such power to levy penalty on user or consumer of other minerals is conferred. Apart from that, Section 15 of the Act does not confer any power on the State Government to make rules authorising the levy of penalty on user or consumer of minor minerals. This contention is sought to be substantiated by referring to the provisions of Section 21 which deals with the levy of penalties in the case of unauthorised mining of minerals. It is submitted by the learned counsel, mat under this provision the penalty is imposed only on the person who raises the mineral without any lawful authority and not on any user or consumer of such mineral. It is pointed out that even under Rule 52 of the Mineral Concession Rules made by the Central Government in the exercise of power under Section 13 of the Act, no penalty is intended to be imposed on user or consumer of minerals. It is further stated that under Section 24, persons authorised by the Central Government can enter upon and inspect any mine only for the purpose of ascertaining the position of working of a mine and they do not have any power to ascertain about the payment of the mineral revenue due to the Government. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel is that the power exercised by the State Government in the making of Rule 26 (3) (ii) travels far beyond the power conferred on it under Section 15 of the Act and therefore, Rule 26 (3) (ii) is ultra vires the powers of the State Government.” 13. By the above said judgment, the Hon’ble Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh upheld the validity of Rule 26, which allows imposition of penalties on users or consumers of minor minerals who fail to provide proof of payment of seiniorage fees and also held that the said rule was necessary to prevent unauthorised quarrying and ensure government revenue. 14. Now coming to the decision in Writ Petition No. 8390 of 2018 and batch, firstly, it will have only a persuasive value upon this Court but not the authoritative value. 14. Now coming to the decision in Writ Petition No. 8390 of 2018 and batch, firstly, it will have only a persuasive value upon this Court but not the authoritative value. Apart from this, with great respect, learned Single Judge did not deal with Section 14 which specifically excludes Section 5 to 13 of the MMDR Act, 1957, whereby Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 13 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and Rule 76 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 deals with penalties. Rule 76 stipulates that any contravention of the provisions of these rules shall be punishable in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 21 of the Act. Therefore S.21 of the MMDR Act which was mentioned in Rule 76 Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (which rule is formulated in exercise of powers conferred under s.13 of the MMDR Act) is excluded from the purview of S.15 as such the levy of penalty by the State in terms of Rule 26 of the TMMC Rules , 1966 (which rule is formulated in exercise of powers conferred under S.15 of the MMDR Act, 1957) is in accordance with the power sourced from the statute itself. Therefore with great respect this Hon’ble Court is not able place the reliance of the above said judgment in favour of the petitioner. 15. Further the contention of petitioner that Karnataka Rear Earth’s case is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, is not appealable for the reason that in the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court was dealing with issue whether grants of leases were made against prohibition contained in Rule 3-A of the KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 1969 and in that context, the Apex Court dealt with Section 21 of the 1957 Act and has not even remotely discussed about present issue on hand, as such the said judgment will not come to the rescue of petitioner. On the other hand, as detailed hereinabove, the Hon’ble Apex Court held the heading of the Section to be misleading. 16. On the other hand, as detailed hereinabove, the Hon’ble Apex Court held the heading of the Section to be misleading. 16. Likewise, petitioner relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh’s case (supra) more particularly with respect to para 8 of the said judgment which states that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. This Court feels that there is no quarrel with the above said proposition. In fact, the State Government draws power from Sections 15 and 21(5) of the Act to make Rule. Thus, Rule 24 of the Rules specifying the penalties is to be read with Section 15 of the 1957 Act and in view of specific exclusion of Section 21 (5), the power to levy penalty by the State is sourced through a proper channel by the statute itself. 17. Petitioner also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory’s case more particularly with respect to Para 5 of the said judgment which has no bearing to the facts of the case at all since the said judgment deals with acquisition of lands by the Central Government under a notification issued under Section 3-A of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956 except for the reference that where a statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, the act has to be done in that manner alone. 18. The next judgments which have been relied upon by petitioner are Addl. District Magistrate vs. Siri Ram ’s case and ITW Signode India Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise ’s case (supra). Paras 16 and 56 respectively of the said judgments have laid down, that it is a well-recognised principle of interpretation of a statute that conferment of rule-making power by an Act does not enable the rule-making authority to make a rule which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is inconsistent therewith or repugnant thereto. Again this Court expresses its acceptance with the said provision as there is no quarrel in the said proposition. Again this Court expresses its acceptance with the said provision as there is no quarrel in the said proposition. But, in the instant case, as stated supra, there is no such deviation in the said Rule 26 to claim it travelling beyond Section 15 or Section 21 (5) and if one clearly discerns the purport of Section 14 and 13 of the 1957 Act read with Rule 76 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, they can easily come to conclusion that contention of petitioner that penalty can be levied only under Section 21 will not have legs to stand; on the contrary, the power of State under Rule 26 of TMMC Rules , 1966 to levy penalty is proper and sourced from the statute itself. 19. The next case relied upon by petitioner is Govt of T.N v. Park View Enterprises’s case (supra) particularly with respect to Paras 8 and 12 of the judgment. The said decision deals with issue pertains to Section 47-A of the STAMP ACT , 1899 and therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the present case in any manner. 20. The next case relied upon by petitioner is Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. Commissioner of Central Excise’s case . Heavy reliance is placed on Para 29 which states that rules or regulations which are in the nature of subordinate legislation which are ultra vires are bound to be ignored by the Courts when the question of their enforcement arises and the mere fact that there is no specific relief sought for to strike down or declare them ultra vires would not stand in the court’s way of not enforcing them. There is no quarrel with the said proposition. Firstly, this Court feels that rules which are in the nature of subordinate legislation are intra vires provisions of MMDR Act, 1957 and the power is sourced to the State to levy penalty by formulating rules in exercise of powers conferred under Section 15 and Section 21 (5) of the MMDR Act, 1957, as such, reliance of petitioner on the above said decision is misplaced more particularly when power to make rules is sourced to the State through the statute itself. 21. 21. From the aforesaid enunciation, it is clear that the State is having power to levy penalty under Rule 26 of the Telangana State Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and when the power is sourced through a statute itself, the contention of petitioner that penalty shall be levied only under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1957 does not stand the judicial scrutiny, as such, the levy of penalty by respondents is in accordance with law. Consequently, challenge to Revision order dated 30.08.2022 and consequential notice dated 05.09.2022 issued by the 4 th respondent by petitioner fails for the reasons stated supra. Resultantly, Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed as bereft of merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. 22. Miscellaneous Applications if any shall stand closed.