Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Mohmmad Harun vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 9 November, 2021

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

                              W.P.NO.25878 OF 2021
ORDER:-


     The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of the

3rd respondent in seizing the lorry bearing No.MH 30 AB 4735 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:

Petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing No. MH 30 AB 4735

and hires the same for transportation of the goods. While so, he hired his

vehicle to Maheswari Granite Factory, Kotappakonda, Narasaraopet

Mandal, Guntur District for transporting granite slabs to Hyderabad. On

26.10.2021 the staff of 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 there

was no proper permit 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 1and 3.

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. MH

30 AB 4735 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 resintigra 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."

(a) 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. MH 30 AB 4735 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.