Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Ankush Baburao Gunjal vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 September, 2021

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

                WRIT PETITION No.21852 of 2021

ORDER:

The petitioners seek writ of mandamus declaring the action of

the 2nd respondent in seizing the lorries bearing Nos.MH 16CA 4554

of the 1st petitioner and MH 17BY 2124 and MH 17BY 2123 of the

2nd petitioner without following the procedure contemplated under law

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

release the vehicle.

2. Petitioners case succinctly is thus: (a) 1st petitioner is the owner

of the lorry bearing No.MH 16CA 4554 and 2nd petitioner is the owner

of lorries bearing Nos. MH 17BY 2124 and MH 17BY 2123 and hires

the same for transportation of the goods. While so, they hired their

vehicles to Sri Mahalakshmi Granite Factory, Kotappakonda,

Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District, for transporting granite slabs to

Hyderabad. On 18.01.2021, the 2nd respondent intercepted the

vehicles and seized them alleging that they are transporting the

Granite Slabs without any authorization bills issued by the Mines and

Geology department and other departments.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ramachandra Rao

Gurram and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology

representing on behalf of the respondents.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 vehicles. He thus prayed to direct the respondents to release the

vehicles.

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 petitioners would argue that the

petitioners are only concerned with the vehicles and they are not the

owners of the material in the vehicles 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 vehicles under the guise of Rule

26(3)(iii) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. He further

submitted that the petitioners live on transportation of the vehicles and

except the said vehicles, they have no other livelihood.

7. Admittedly, 1st petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing

No.MH 16CA 4554 and 2nd petitioner is the owner of lorries bearing

Nos. MH 17BY 2124 and MH 17BY 2123 and they are not concerned

with the granite slabs found in their vehicles, 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 vehicles

pending proceedings.

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

petition deserves to be allowed and lorry bearing No.MH 16CA 4554

of the 1st petitioner and lorries bearing Nos. MH 17BY 2124 and MH

17BY 2123 of the 2nd petitioner can be ordered to be released.

However, the terms and conditions are concerned, the petitioners

request that the vehicles may be ordered to be released on furnishing

personal bonds cannot be considered for the reason that the owners of

the vehicles belong to Ahmadnagar District, Maharastra State and

subject lorries were registered in Maharastra State and if the same are

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 vehicles are, shall get the value of the vehicles assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector concerned in the presence of the owner of the vehicles/petitioners and on fixing of the value of the vehicles by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, the petitioners shall furnish either bank guarantee or immovable property security to the value of the vehicles as assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and also execute personal bonds to the satisfaction of the authority concerned.

(ii) The interim custody of the vehicles shall be given in favour of the petitioners, subject to producing proof in support of the ownership of the vehicles;

(iii) The petitioners shall give an undertaking to produce the vehicles as and when required either by the authority concerned or Court or the Investigating Agency and also give an undertaking that they will not alienate, encumber or alter the physical features of the vehicles.