Shivanand vs State Of Ap
2021 Latest Caselaw 890 AP

          HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


 HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                            &
          HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR


                           Writ Appeal No.11 of 2021

                           (Through video conferencing)

Shivanand, S/o Babu Rao Biradar, Hindu,
Aged about 43 years, Occ : Business,
R/o Hunachagera, Maniknagar, Homnabad Taluq,
Bidar District, Karnataka - 585 353
(Owner of the Lorry bearing Regn.No.KA 56 2841)           ..   Appellant


                                     Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary
to Government, Home Department,
A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District, A.P. - 522 238 & 4 Others                ..   Respondents


Counsel for the Appellant                     :   Mr.Ghanta Rama Rao,
                                                  Mr.Venkateswarlu
                                                  Gadipudi

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,2&3 :            G.P. for Home

Counsel for the Respondent No.4               :   G.P. for Mines & Geology

Counsel for the Respondent No.5               :   --

Date of Hearing                               :   03.02.2021

Date of pronouncement                         :   17.02.2021


                                  JUDGMENT

(per C.Praveen Kumar, J)

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 01-12-2020 in W.P.No.22054 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 A.P. 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 56 2841, which was being used for

transporting goods and material. On 04.11.2020, while the vehicle was

proceeding from Uppumaguluru check post, the 3rd 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 respondents 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 27.05.2020 and W.P.No.10023 of

2020, dated 18.06.2020, 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 along with 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 &

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 along with 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 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.

8. On the other hand, a comprehensive reading of the said Rule show

that the said provision was mainly directed against the mineral that was

being transported in the vehicle without any valid permit. Hence, the

argument of the learned Government Pleader has no legs to stand.

9. At this stage, learned Government Pleader would submit that

certain stringent conditions may be imposed if the vehicle is to be

released, as there is every possibility of the said vehicle being used again

for transporting mineral illegally.

10. In Surenderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat1, the Apex

Court has laid down that in case of vehicles seized during investigation,

they should not be allowed to deteriorate by being kept unused and

unattended in the premises of the Police Stations. The vehicle has to be

entrusted to the interim custody of the appellant/petitioner, subject to

appropriate conditions, namely, by taking appropriate bond and guarantee

as well as security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of

time.

11. Keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the

judgment referred to above and having regard to the statement made by

the learned Government Pleader that there is every possibility of the

vehicle being used again for transporting mineral illegally, we feel it

(2002) 10 SCC 283

appropriate to grant interim custody of the vehicle, pending adjudication

of the proceedings before the concerned authority/court, on the following

terms and conditions :

(i) 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;

(ii) The interim custody of the vehicle shall be given in favour of the appellant/petitioner, subject to producing proof in support of the ownership of the vehicle;

(iii) The appellant/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.

12. With the above directions, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                                C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
skmr