APHC010343592025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 17241 OF 2025 Between: 1. SHAIK DARIYA, S/O. MOULALI, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 5-74, MADDI SITADEVI NAGAR, MARTUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. (OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO. AP 39 UE 8888) ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, DEPT, OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VEIAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MACHAVARAM POLICE STATION, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pleased to issue any writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of 3RD respondent in issuing the impugned letter dated 02.07.2025, seizing the Lorry bearing No. AP 39 UE 8888 belonging to the petitioner along with granite slabs and directing to pay fine, etc. as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and 2 KM,J W.P.No.17241 of 2025 also contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Minor, Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and consequently set-aside the impugned letter dated 02.07.2025 by directing the respondents 2 to 4 to release the petitioners vehicle i.e. Lorry bearing No. AP 39 UE 8888 and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V VINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY 3 KM,J W.P.No.17241 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 17241 OF 2025 The Court made the following order: The writ petition is filed challenging the action of the 3rd respondent in seizing the Vehicle Lorry bearing No.AP 39 UE 8888 belonging to the petitioner without following any procedure under law. 2. Heard V.Vinod K Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Sudeepthi Potluri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities intercepted the vehicle belonging to the petitioner. It is contended that on the ground that the petitioner did not produce the necessary documents, and directed the lorry driver to pay Rs.5,21,745/-, normal seigniorage fee & other statutory levies and price for unauthorized transportation of black granite slabs under Rule 26(2)(c) and 34(1)(1) as per Andhra Pradesh Minor, Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Naganath Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1, observed as follows: 12021 (2) ALD 535 4 KM,J W.P.No.17241 of 2025 “Having regard to the usage of the word, „driver‟ or „person-incharge 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 along with seigniorage fee prevalent at that time. On a reading of the above Rule, there is nothing to indicate, the vehicle cannot be released, unless the penalty and seigniorage fee is paid. All that the rule states is that the penalty equal to market value of the mineral seized along with seigniorage fee prevalent at that time can be ordered to be paid at the time of interception of the vehicle, if driver or person-in-charge of the vehicle fails to produce a valid permit. But, nowhere the Rule postulates that the vehicle cannot be released, unless the same is paid.” 5. It is stated that relying on the above decision of the Division Bench, this Court has disposed of the writ petitions. One such decision is placed before me in W.P.No.6704 of 2025, dated 20.03.2025, placing reliance on the same, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The respondent authorities shall give interim custody of the vehicle bearing No.AP 39 UE 8888 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 5 KM,J W.P.No.17241 of 2025 not alienate, encumber or alter the physical features of the vehicle. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 14.07.2025 BSK 6 KM,J W.P.No.17241 of 2025 37 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 17241 OF 2025 Date: 14.07.2025 BSK