SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 997

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
K.Manmadha Rao, J.
Venkatalakshmi Lorry And Earth Movers – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1117 of 2022
Decided On : 12-01-2022

Advocates appeared:
B.Jaya Prabhakara Rao, Advocate

The central legal point established is that the seizure of the vehicle without following the procedure contemplated under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules was illegal.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Seizure of Vehicle - A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules - The court allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to give interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner upon furnishing a personal bond and proof of ownership, based on the financial status of the petitioner and the provisions of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's vehicle was seized by the 3rd respondent alleging excavation of gravel without valid permission. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus declaring the seizure as illegal and for the release of the vehicle.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to give interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner based on the financial status of the petitioner.

Issues: The issue involved the seizure of the vehicle without following the procedure contemplated under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered Rule 26(3)(iii) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, which empowers mining authorities to collect seigniorage fee and penalty but does not authorize them to seize the vehicle.

Final Decision: The court directed the authorities to give interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner upon furnishing a personal bond and proof of ownership, and the petitioner was required to give an undertaking regarding the vehicle.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Justice K.Manmadha Rao. - The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in seizing the vehicle i.e., Hydraulic Excavator @ R210 Machine Serial No.N633D03069(Hyundai-210) of the petitioner without following the procedure contemplated under law as illegal and for consequential direction to the 3nd respondent to release the vehicle.

2. Petitioner's case succinctly is thus:

    (a) Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle i.e., Hydraulic Excavator @ R210 Machine Serial No.N633D03069(Hyundai-210). On 04.01.2022 the vehicle of the petitioner was seized by the 3rd respondent alleging excavation of gravel without valid permission in Sy.No.578/1 to an extent of ac.1.80 cents, held by Smt.Garapaka Pullama, W/o.Kotaiah, arugolanu Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District.

    Hence, the writ petition.

    3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri B.Jaya Prabhakara Rao and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology representing respondents 1 to 3 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.

    4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Rule 26 (3)(iii) of a.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short 'aPMMC Rules'), Mining authorities are empowered to collect seigniorage fee and penalty but they have no authority to seize the vehicle. He thus prayed to direct the respondents to release the vehicle.

    5. Learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology would submit that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is covered by the order passed in W.P.No.10954 of 2021 and requested that this Writ Petiton may be disposed of accordingly.

    6. accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and taking into the financial status of the petitioner, the following order is passed:

      (i) The respondent authorities shall give interim custody of the vehicle i.e., Hydraulic Excavator @ R210 Machine Serial No.N633D03069(Hyundai-210) to the petitioner upon his furnishing a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- and producing proof in support of his ownership of the vehicle;

      (ii) The petitioner shall give an undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required either by the authority concerned or Court or the Investigating agency and also give an undertaking that he will not alienate, encumber or alter the physical features of the vehicle.

      7. Registry is directed to attach copy of the order in W.P.No.10954 of 2021 to this order.

      8. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top