The vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 655 AP

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

                  WRIT PETITION No.2895 of 2022

ORDER:

The petitioners seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of the

2nd respondent in seizing the lorries bearing No. AP 02 TE 1818 & AP 21

TA 4878 of the petitioners without following the procedure

contemplated under law as illegal and for consequential direction to the

2nd respondent to release the vehicles.

2. Petitioner's case succinctly is thus:

Petitioners are the owner of the lorry bearing Nos. AP 02 TE 1818

& AP 21 TA 4878 and hires the same for transportation of the goods.

While so, they hired their vehicles to Suraksha Granite dealers by name

Perni Nani of Ballikurava Village & Mandal, Prakasam District, for

transporting granite slabs to Martur Village. On 20.01.2022, the

2nd respondent intercepted the vehicles and seized the vehicles alleging

that Granite Slabs are transported 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 N.Sri Hari, learned

Government Pleader for Mines and Geology representing on behalf of

the 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 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 vehicles fails to produce valid e-

transit permit issued by the concerned Assistant Director of Mines and

Geology, the officer intercepting the vehicles have the power to require

the driver or the owner of the vehicles 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 vehicles and the granite were seized and if the driver or the

owner of the vehicles seeks release of the vehicles, 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

owner 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 lives on vehicles transportation business and except the

said vehicles, they have no other livelihood and they are not even an

income tax assessee and to that effect, they specifically mentioned in the

affidavit also. He thus prayed to direct the respondents to release the

vehicles on suitable terms.

7. Admittedly, the petitioners are the owner of the vehicles bearing

Nos. AP 02 TE 1818 & AP 21 TA 4878 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 vehicles 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 vehicles 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. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and taking into the

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

(i) The respondent authorities shall give interim custody

of the vehicles bearing Nos. AP 02 TE 1818 & AP 21 TA

4878 to the petitioners upon furnishing a personal bond for

₹2,00,000/- for each lorry and producing proof in support

of their ownership of the vehicles;

(ii) The petitioners shall bear expenditure to unload the

material from 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.

(iv) So far as the mineral is concerned, as per the affidavit

of the petitioners, it belongs to Suraksha Granites dealers

by name Perni Nani of Ballikurava Village & Mandal,

Prakasam District. Therefore, the respondent authorities

are at liberty to proceed against the said owner as per law.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall

stand closed.

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

07.02.2022 SSP