Tata Balaji vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2638 AP

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

                      WRIT PETITION No.14526 of 2021

ORDER:

The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of

the 3rd respondent in seizing the lorry bearing No.

AP 27TZ 2127 of the petitioner without following the procedure

contemplated under law as illegal and for consequential direction to nd the 2 respondent to release the vehicle.

2. Petitioner's case succinctly is thus:

(a) Petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing No.

AP 27TZ 2127 and hires the same for transportation of the goods.

While so, he hired his vehicle to granite dealers of Machavaram

Mandal, Krishna District, for transporting granite slabs to rd Hyderabad. On 3 0 . 0 6 .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, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology

representing on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 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). He

further submitted that the petitioner lives on vehicle transportation

business and except the said vehicle, he has no other livelihood and he

is not even an income tax assessee and to that effect, he specifically

mentioned in the affidavit also. 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 27TZ 2127 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. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and taking into the

financial status of the petitioner, the following order is passed:

(i) The respondent authorities shall give interim

custody of the vehicle bearing No.AP 27TZ 2127 to the

petitioner upon his furnishing a personal bond for

₹2,00,000/- and producing proof in support of his

ownership of the vehicle;

(ii) The petitioner shall bear expenditure to unload the

material from 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

27.07.2021 SS