Disposed

Kona Poturaju, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Feb 2024WP/2827/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought release of his tractor and trailer seized over an FIR alleging offences including theft and unlawful mining transport, contending the authorities should have imposed penalty under G.O.Ms.No.71 rather than seizing without due procedure. Following an identical earlier writ, the Court disposed of the petition in the same terms.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed in terms of order in W.P.No.29867 of 2021 dated 17.12.2021; penalty under Clause 16 of G.O.Ms.No.71 and release of vehicles on payment and proof of ownership.

Kona Poturaju, Vs The State of Andhra… — Mining and Natural Resources | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

m THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY. THE FIFTH DAY OF. FEBRUARY . TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT 'f i

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA/" WRIT PETITION MO: 2827 OF 2024X

¶5

Eietween:

¶6

Kona Poturaju, S/o.Ranga Rao, aged about 46 years,^{OwnerofTractor} bearing No. AP39U5717 and its Trailer bearing No.AP39UD0823,R/o.^2-150/1 Pesarlanka village, Kolluiru Mandal, Guntur District^-522324.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Secretariat Buildings,

¶10

Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Gutur District-522237.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Vernuru, Bapatia District.

¶12

The Station House Officer, Vernuru Police Station, Bapatia District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3'"'^ respondent in seizing the Tractor bearing No.AP39U5717 and its Trailer bearing NO.AP39UD0823 of the Petitioner in connection with FIR No.30 of 2024 without following the procedure known to the law under APMMC Rules, 1966 as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and contrary to the procedure established by law and against to the principles of natural justice and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to release the above said vehicles of the^{Petitionerforthwithin} f the interest of justice

¶15

/■ / - Ml.

¶16

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024 H.;vi \ { Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances IsJ •! I &9m<> A.i ^ ■ inV the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be •I y A to direct the respondents to release the Tractor bearing \ f, Petitioner lfe-AP39U5717 and its Trailer bearing No.AP3^-UD0823^ofthe pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. B JAVA PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE' Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

¶21

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.2827 of 2024

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226

¶25

of the Constitution of India seeking the following^relief:-

¶26

.. to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in seizing the Tractor bearing N0.AP39U5717 and its Trailer bearing No.AP39UD0823 of the Petitioner in connection with FIR No. 30 of 2024^without following the procedure known to the law under APMMC Rules, 1966 as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and contrary^tothe procedure established by law and against to the principles of natural justice and violative of fundamental irghts guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the above said vehicles of the Petitioner.....”

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for respondent^Nol, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent^No.2 and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.3.

¶28

The grievance of the petitioner is that 3'"'^ respondent^seized the Tractor and the Trailer bearing Nos.AP39U5717 and AP39UD0823 without following the due procedure.

¶29

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is using the said Tractor along with Trailer for the commercial purpose. While so, on 30.01.2024, the respondent seized the above said vehicle and registered^acasein FIR No.30 of 2024 under Sections 379 of IPC and Section 22 of MMDARA Act, which is contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 04.09.2019.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, at best the respondent authorities can impose the penalty^under Clause 16 of G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 04.09.2019, instead of that. the 3'"'^ respondent falsely registered a Criminal^{Casewhichisnot} warranted in the facts and circumstances.

¶32

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the seized vehicle of the petitioner would be dealt with by following the due procedure by the respondents and interim custody of the same would be considered as per law.

¶33

However, both the counsels submitted that the issue involved herein is similar and identical to the issue^involvedin W.P.No.29867 of 2021 and that the subject is squarely^covered

t L

by the order of this Court in W.P.No.29867 of 2021 dated 17.12.2021.

¶38

Accordingly, this Writ Petition ISi disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

Office is directed to append the copy of the order passed i n W.P..N0.29867 of 2021 dated 17.12.2021, to this order copy.

¶40

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any. shall also stand closed.

¶41

//TRUE COPY'//

¶42

To, CTION OFFICER

¶43

‘in' I . |3ecre||/, Mines and Geology Department

¶44

A ^ Velagapudi I, Amaravathi, Gutur District

¶45

Pradesh- 522237.

¶46

■<-. 1 ahsildar, Vernuru Bapatia District.

¶47

d. The Station House Officer 4 Onerr, CO, n Station, Bapatia District. '5 ■ rc r p RAO Advocate fOPUC]

¶48

S. Two CCs to GP FOR RFVFMi ic u- u ^ ■r r r-.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh.r [OUT] [OUT]

CTION OFFICER

bhb

HIGH COURT

EDATED:05/02/2024

WP.Mo.2827 of 2024

DISPOSIMG OFF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

•s 1
'.1

¶56

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶57

WRIT PETITION Nn,29867 012021

¶58

ORDER:

¶59

Learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology, representing the respondent No.l and learned Government Pleader for Home, representing the respondent No.3, would agree that the issue m this writ petition is covered by the order passed in W.P.No.671 of 2020, dated 08.01.2020. It is also submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that so far the subject vehicles have not been produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶60

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of order in W.P.No.671 of 2020, dated 08.01.2020 and the respondent authorities are directed to impose penalty in terms of Clause 16 of G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 04.09.2019 and on payment of such penalty by the petitioners, the respondents shall release the seized Tractors along with attached Trailers bearing No. AP 27 CB 9079 and Np.AP 27 TW 5457 to the petitioners upon their producing proof of ownership of the said vehicles to the satisfaction of the 2"‘‘ respondent. No costs.

¶61

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶62

17"’DECEMBER,2021 Note:Issue CC tomorrow (B/0) TSNR

¶63

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

Kona Poturaju, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kona Poturaju, 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

Yanati Sreedhar Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Sri Vidyaniketan College of Education Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Tamatam Veerabhadra Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Pardhu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vijaya Behara Welfare Society Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Md. Julfeekhar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh