Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 17983 (AP)

Yavvakula Veerraju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/5511/2026 · 2026-02-23

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010102092026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT WRIT PETITION NO: 5511 OF 2026 Between: Yavvakula Veerraju, S/o. Subbarao, aged 45 years, R/o. 3-240/1, Devi Gudi Veedhi, Velugubanda Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its, Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Secretariat Buildings at Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh-522237. 2. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District-533101. 3. The Deputy Executive Engineer, EHT Lines Sub-Division, APTRANSCO, Bommuru, East Godavari District-533124. 4. The Tahsildar, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh - 533294. 5. The Station House Officer, Rajanagaram Police Station, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh-533294 ...Respondents 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 issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein in seizing the TATA 2 Hitachi 200LC Procliner with Chassis No. SP20-15341 belongs to the petitioner, without following any procedure known to law as illegal, arbitrary and against to principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioner from their custody and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 may be pleased to direct the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein to grant interim custody i.e., TATA Hitachi 200LC Procliner with Chassis No. SP20-15341 belongs to the petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: CHETAN PONNURU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following order: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.5511 OF 2026 ORDER: The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer: “to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein in seizing the TATA Hitachi 200LC Procliner with Chassis No. SP20-15341 belongs to the petitioner, without following any procedure known to law as illegal, arbitrary and against to principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioner from their custody and pass …..” 2. Heard Sri Chetan Ponnuru, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 5th respondent authorities intercepted the vehicle belonging to the petitioner basing on the report made by the 3rd respondent. The 4 petitioner had produced the necessary documents. The petitioner contends that the authorities had no authority to seize a vehicle and prays for release of the vehicle. 4. 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, wherein it was observed as follows: “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 12021 (2) ALD 535 4 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, the writ petitions were disposed of earlier. One such decision 1 2021(2) ALD 535 5 is placed before me in W.P.No.31038 of 2025, dated 10.11.2025, which was disposed of basing on the earlier decision of this Court in W.P.10954 of 2021, dated 06.07.2021. Placing reliance on the same, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The respondent authorities shall give interim custody of the vehicle bearing No. TATA Hitachi 200LC Procliner with Chassis No. SP20-15341 to the petitioner upon 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. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:24.02.2026 Rns 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.5511 of 2026 Date:24.02.2026 Rns