ORDER:

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, challenging the notice dated 19.11.2019 bearing No.4120/Sand/2019 issued by fourth respondent, declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of Constitution of India and notice dated 20.11.2019, so also seizure of goods carriage HMV lorries bearing Nos.AP 07 TN 1116 (Ashok Leyland) and AP 39 TB 8469 (Tata Motors Make) belonging to petitioner.

2. During hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner though raised several contentions with regard to power of fifth respondent to seize lorries referred above on the ground that court can take cognizance only on the complaint of competent authority authorized by State government in this regard and not by police complaint. But the petitioner now challenging before this Court, action of fifth respondent in seizing goods carriage HMV lorries as it is without any authority. But it is brought to the notice of this Court during hearing that a case in Crime No.332 of 2019 is registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C) and Section 22 of Mines and Minerals Development (Regulation) Act (for short the Act). So far as offence punishable under Section 22 of the Act is concerned the court cannot take cognizance except on the complaint of officer authorized by State or Central government, but so far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C is concerned, police officer is competent. When both the offences are allegedly committed by petitioner, complaint can be registered even though one offence is cognizable. Therefore, registration of crime for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C which is cognizable and Section 22 of the Act is not an irregularity, prima facie. However, in these proceedings, this Court cannot settle the issue, more particularly when the petitioner is challenging seizure of goods carriage HMV lorries bearing Nos.AP 07 TN 1116 (Ashok Leyland) and AP 39 TB 8469 (Tata Motors Make). When a crime was registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C seizure of vehicles by police is in accordance with law and police are bound to produce the same before jurisdictional Magistrate along with F.I.R. When crime is pending against the petitioner, he is entitled to file appropriate application for interim custody of vehicles, during pendency of investigation, if the vehicles are produced before the Magistrate. But it is not known whether fifth respondent produced the vehicles before Magistrate along with F.I.R or not? If the vehicles are not produced before Magistrate, fifth respondent is directed to produce the vehicles before the Magistrate forthwith and on such production, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application under Section 451 of Criminal Procedure Code, claiming interim custody of the vehicles, during pendency of investigation.

3. Though the petitioner is challenging notices dated 19.11.2019 and 20.11.2019, respondents by exercising power under Rules as mandated by G.O.Ms.No.99 dated 15.11.2019 issued the said notices, the same cannot be set aside, since a crime is allegedly committed by the petitioner on 15.11.2019 itself, though permission was obtained for transportation on 13.11.2019. But these disputed questions cannot be decided at this stage in the present petition. However, respondents may redress the grievance of petitioner in the appeal before competent authority under Rule 35 of Mines and Minerals Concession Rules. Hence, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application for interim custody of vehicles under Section 451 of Criminal Procedure Code before jurisdictional Magistrate and also at liberty to prefer an appeal under Rule 35 of Mines and Minerals Concession Rules.

4. With the above direction the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

5. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand cl