Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Narasa Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 24 July, 2021

Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

                  WRIT PETITION No.14324 of 2021

ORDER:

The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of

the 3rd respondent in seizing the lorry bearing No.KA 56 5287 of the

petitioner without following the procedure contemplated under law as

illegal and for consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to release

the vehicle.

2. Petitioner's case succinctly is thus: (a) Petitioner is the owner of

the lorry bearing No. KA 56 5287 and hires the same for

transportation of the goods. While so, he hired his vehicle to granite

dealers of Santhamaguluru Mandal, Prakasam District, for

transporting granite slabs to Hyderabad. On 28.06.2021, the

3rd respondent intercepted the vehicle and on verification of the

documents produced by the driver, they observed that the quantity

mentioned in the bill was not covered with the bills and accordingly,

seized the vehicle and granite.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Somisetty Ganesh

Babu, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology

representing on behalf of respondents 1, 3 and 4 and learned

Government Pleader for Home, representing on behalf of

2nd respondent.

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. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology

would argue that as per Rule 26(3)(iii) of APMMC Rules as amended

by G.O.Ms.No.35 Industries & Commerce (Mines-III) Department,

dated 01.07.2020, if the driver or owner of vehicle fails to produce

valid e-transit permit issued by the concerned Assistant Director of

Mines and Geology, the officer intercepting the vehicle has the power

to require the driver or the owner of the vehicle to pay five times of

the normal Seigniorage fee as penalty in addition to the Normal

Seigniorage fee along with DMF and MERIT amounts and in

consonance with the said rule the vehicle and the granite were seized

and if the driver or the owner of the vehicle seeks release of the

vehicle, they have to comply with Rule 26(3)(iii) of APMMC Rules.

6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the

petitioner is only concerned with the vehicle and he is not the owner

of the material in the vehicle and Rule 26(3)(iii) of APMMC Rules is

predominantly aimed against the mineral that was being transported

without necessary documents and the authorities have every power to

seize the mineral which is not covered with documents but they have

no power to seize the vehicle under the guise of Rule 26(3)(iii) of

A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. He further submitted

that the petitioner lives on transportation of the vehicle and except the

said vehicle, he has no other livelihood and he is not even an income

tax assessee and to that effect he filed a separate affidavit also.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing

No. KA 56 5287 and he is not concerned with the granite slabs found

in his vehicle, which were allegedly not supported by the required

documents. Be that it may, Rule 26(3)(iii) of APMMC Rules as

amended by G.O.Ms.No.35 Industries & Commerce (Mines-III)

Department, dated 01.07.2020, which empowers the authorities to

impose penalty for unauthorized quarrying and transporting minor

minerals, reads thus:

"If the Driver or owner of the vehicle fails to produce a valid e- transit permit issued by the concerned Asst. Director of Mines & Geology or an officer authorized by the Director of Mines & 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 of the vehicle to pay Five times of the normal Seigniorage fee as penalty in addition to the Normal Seigniorage fee along with DMF and MERIT amounts for the quantity not covered under the e-transit permit."

(a) Basing on the above rule, it is argued by the learned

Government Pleader that the respondent authorities are empowered to

require the Driver or the owner of the vehicle to pay Five times of the

normal Seigniorage fee as penalty for not holding the permit and bills

for the transported mineral. This issue is no more res integra and same

is covered by the order dated 17.02.2021 in Writ Appeal No.4 of 2021

of High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It was observed thus:

"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."

(b) On the above observation, the Division Bench was pleased to

allow the appeal and ordered release of the vehicle on certain terms

and conditions. The above judgment squarely applies to the case on

hand. Therefore, the authorities cannot seize the subject vehicle

pending proceedings.

8. Having regard to the above factual and legal position, the writ

petition deserves to be allowed and lorry bearing No. KA 56 5287 can

be ordered to be released. However, the terms and conditions are

concerned, the petitioner's request that the vehicle may be ordered to

be released on furnishing personal bond on the ground that he is not

even an income tax assessee cannot be considered for the reason that

the owner of the vehicle belongs to Basavakalyan District, Bidar,

Karnataka State and subject lorry was registered in Karnataka State

and if the same is not produced as and when required, concerned

proceedings will be stalled.

9. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and ordered as follows:

(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/petitioner and on fixing of the value of the vehicle by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, the 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 petitioner, subject to producing proof in support of the ownership of the vehicle;

(iii) 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.