Allowed

Shaik Abdul Rahaman v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Nov 2021WP/25379/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench allowed a writ petition seeking release of a seized lorry. Relying on a prior High Court order concerning Rule 26(3)(iii) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, the court held that authorities could not seize the vehicle and granted interim custody subject to a personal bond and ownership proof.

What did the court decide?

Interim custody of the vehicle granted upon furnishing a personal bond for ₹2,00,000/- and producing proof of ownership; directions to release vehicle pending proceedings.

Shaik Abdul Rahaman Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO WRIT PETITION No.25379 of 2021

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in seizing the lorry bearing No.AP 27UB 2646 of the petitioner without following the procedure contemplated under law as illegal and for consequential direction to the 2^nd respondent to release the vehicle.

¶4

Petitioner’s case succinctly is thus:

¶5

Petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 27UB 2646 and hires the same for transportation of the goods. While so, he hired his vehicle to Mahendra Granites, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District, for transporting granite slabs to Vijayawada. On 21.10.2021, the 2^nd respondent intercepted the vehicle and seized the vehicle alleging that Granite Slabs are transporting without any authorization bills issued by the Mines and Geology department and other departments.

¶6

Hence, the writ petition.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 2^nd respondent.

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. 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

¶13

¶14

also. He thus prayed to direct the respondents to release the vehicle on suitable terms.

¶15

Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP 27UB 2646 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:

¶16

“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.”

¶17

(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:

¶18

“7. Having regard to the usage of the word, ‘driver’ or ‘personin-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

¶19

¶20

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.

¶21

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.”

¶22

(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.

¶23

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and taking into the financial status of the petitioner, the following order is passed:

¶24

(i) The respondent authorities shall give interim custody of the vehicle bearing No.AP 27UB 2646 to the petitioner upon his furnishing a personal bond for ₹2,00,000/- and producing proof in support of his ownership of the vehicle;

¶25

(ii) The petitioner shall bear expenditure to unload the material from the vehicle.

¶26

¶27

(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.

¶28

(iv) So far as the mineral is concerned, as per the affidavit of the petitioner, it belongs to Mahendra Granites, Martual Mandal, Prakasam District. Therefore, the respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed against the said owner as per law.

¶29

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

¶30

stand closed.

¶31

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶32

12.11.2021 SS

Shaik Abdul Rahaman v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Abdul Rahaman v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rayalaseema Professional Colleges Management Association Vs The Member Secretary, Admission and Fee Regulatory

M/s. Dwaraka Tirumala Constructions, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Sai Srinivasa Granites, Reptd. by its Partner Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vidyaranya Oriental Aided High School, Anantapur Vs Prl Secy, Education (S.E.P.S.I) Dept, Hyd and 2 Ot

Kathi Hari Kumar, Ysr Kadapa Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., School Education Dept. and 4 Ors.

A.J.College of Education, Rep by Its Founder Family Vs the State of Ap., Rep Byits Prl.Secreatry and 2 Others