Disposed

Juvvadi Sriramamurthy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Mar 2021WP/4844/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the seizure of his hydraulic excavator by mining officials, alleging violations of Articles 14 and 21. The court disposed of the petition at the admission stage by permitting compliance with a specific rule and directing the release of the vehicle upon such compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to comply with Rule 26 of APMMC Rules, 1966; upon compliance, respondents directed to release the vehicle.

Juvvadi Sriramamurthy Vs The State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH WRIT PETITON NO.4844 of 2021

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 3^rd respondent in seizing TATA Hitachi Hydraulic Excavator Model No. EX 70 on 22.07.2020 belonging to the petitioner, inspite of seeking release of same on furnishing 3^rd party security to the 2^nd respondent, as being illegal, arbitrary and in negation of principles of natural justice and fair play apart from being in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India.

¶4

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the TATA Hitachi (Hydraulic Excavator) Model No. EX 70 on 22.07.2020, and the same was given on hire to Mrs.K.Paddi Raju for excavation of gravel. While so, after excavating the gravel and filled into the vehicle, the staff of the 2^nd respondent along with 3^rd respondent have seized the vehicle alleging that Sri.K.Paddi Raju do not have valid permission for transportation and the seized the vehicle, which was kept in possession of the 4^th respondent.

¶5

Petitioner further stated that when he approached the 2^nd respondent for release of the vehicle, the 2^nd respondent refused to handover the interim custody of the vehicle even though the petitioner gave an undertaking that he will furnish third party surety. He further submits that if the respondents are not directed to give the interim custody of the subject vehicle to the petitioner, he will suffer irreparable loss and hardship. Hence, the writ petition.

¶6

¶7

Learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that as per amendment to Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 14.03.2016 was issued and he has no objection if clause (iii) of Sub-rule (3)(ii) of Rule 26 of APMMC Rules, 1966 is complied with.

¶8

Clause (iii) of Sub-rule (3)(ii) of Rule 26 of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 [APMMC Rules, 1966] reads thus:

¶9

“ if the Driver or person in-charge of the vehicle fails to produce a valid permit issued by the concerned Assistant Director of Mines and Geology or an officer authorised by the Director of Mines and 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 or person in-charge of the vehicle to pay penalty equal to Market Value of the Mineral along with Seigniorage Fee prevalent at that time .”

¶10

Considering the above submissions of both the counsel and on consent, the present Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶11

The petitioner is permitted to comply with the terms and conditions stipulated in clause (iii) of Sub-rule (3)(ii) of Rule 26 of APMMC Rules, 1966; and, on compliance, the respondents are directed to release the vehicle. No order as to costs.

¶12

Consequently, miscellaneous application, if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶14

Date: 02-03-2021 Pnr

¶15

¶16

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶17

WRIT PETITON NO.4844 of 2021

¶18

Date: 02.03.2021

¶19

Pnr

Juvvadi Sriramamurthy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvvadi Sriramamurthy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ushodaya Granites, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S P S Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Chopparapu Vara Lakshmi, Vs Smt.v.Usha Rani

P.Mohan Rao, Vs The District Collector

Gadu Sreenivasa Rao Vs Prl. Secy., Excise Dept. and 3 Ors.

Devarapu Malyadri Vs State of Ap