Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kanumuri Rama Prasad vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 26 July, 2021
Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
WRIT PETITION No.13892 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of
the 3rd respondent in seizing the lorry bearing No.
AP 07TF 9239 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.
AP 07TF 9239 and hires the same for transportation of the goods.
While so, he hired his vehicle to granite dealers of Ballikurava
Mandal, Prakasam District, for transporting granite slabs to
rd
Hyderabad. On 0 9.07.2021, the 3 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 and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology
representing respondents 1, 3 and 4.
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). He
thus prayed to direct the respondents to release the vehicle on suitable
terms.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing
No.AP 07TF 9 2 3 9 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.AP 07TF 9239
can be ordered to be released.
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.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
_________________________
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
26.07.2021
SS
