Point of law: The person, in whose custody the vehicle is, shall get the value of the vehicle assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector concerned in the presence of the owner of the vehicle/appellant/petitioner and on fixing of the value of the vehicle by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, the appellant/petitioner shall furnish either bank guarantee or immovable property security to the value of the vehicle as assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and also execute a personal bond to the satisfaction of the authority concerned

JUDGMENT :

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 1.12.2020 in W.P. No. 22076 of 2020, wherein the learned Single Judge ordered release of the vehicle, subject to complying with the terms and conditions stipulated in Clause (iii) of sub-rule (3)(ii) of Rule 26 of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (APMMC Rules, 1966), the present writ appeal came to be filed.

2. The synoptic outline of the facts of the case, which led to present writ appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, are as under:

The appellant/writ petitioner is said to be the owner of a lorry bearing Registration No. KA 563073, which was being used for transporting goods and material. On 4.11.2020, while the vehicle was proceeding from Gurijepalli Village, the staff of the 2nd respondent intercepted the vehicle and seized the same on the ground that the writ appellant-writ petitioner was transporting granite slabs without any valid permit. Questioning the action of the respondent No. 2 in seizing the vehicle, writ petition came to be filed. Relying upon the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 9277 of 2020, dated 27.5.2020 and W.P. No. 10023 of 2020, dated 18.6.2020, the learned Single Judge ordered release of the vehicle, subject to compliance of clause (iii) of sub-rule (3)(ii) of Rule 26 of APMMC Rules, 1966. Assailing the same, the present writ appeal is filed.

3. Sri. Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner, would submit that the conditions of compliance of Rule 26 of APMMC Rules, 1966 does not arise in a case of this nature. According to him, the appellant is only seeking release of the vehicle and not the goods contained therein. He would submit that payment of penalty equal to market value of the mineral alongwith seigniorage fee prevalent at that time would arise only if the appellant is seeking release of the material. He took us through the said Rule in support of his argument. He would further submit that the respondent has no power to seize the vehicle as well, but, however, did not press for the same at this stage. In support of his plea, he relied upon the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 20538 of 2020, W.P. No. 20532 of 2020, W.P. No. 8090 of 2019 and W.P. No. 39939 of 2018.

4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology would submit that a reading of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 would clearly indicate that the authorities have power to seize the vehicle. He also relied upon the judgments of this Court in support of his contention. He further submits that in a number of cases this Court ordered release of the vehicle, subject to compliance of Rule 26 of APMMC Rules, 1966.

5. From a reading of the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the material placed before the Court it is apparent that the vehicle was intercepted when it was transporting granite. It also appears from the record that relevant permissions were not produced by the driver at that time. Keeping these circumstances in the background we proceed to deal with the matter.

6. Clause (iii) of sub-rule (3)(ii) of Rule 26 of APMMC Rules, 1966 reads thus:

“If the Driver or person-in-charge of the vehicle fails to produce a valid permit issued by the concerned Assistant Director of Mines and Geology or an officer authorized by the Director of Mines and Geology, the officer-in-charge of the check post or barrier or during the interception of the movement of the vehicle, may require the Driver or the owner or person-in-charge of the vehicle to pay penalty equal to market value of the mineral alongwith seigniorage fee prevalent at that time.”

7. Having regard to the usage of the word ‘driver’ or ‘person-in-charge of the vehicle’ the Government Pleader tried to contend that even for release of the vehicle, the owner or the person claiming release of the vehicle has to pay penalty equal to the market value of the mineral al