Ghantasala Yesuraju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522237.

¶12

THE TAHSILDAR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶13

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM II TOWN POLICE STATION, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, AGRB SECTION, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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

¶18

2

¶19

pleased topleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 in seizing the Sri Lalitha Devi named Boat of the Petitioner in connection with FIR No.151 of 2025 without following the 0 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(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the above said Sri Lalitha Devi named Boat of the Petitioner forthwith in the interest of justice and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to grant interim custody Sri Lalitha Devi named Boat of the Petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.B JAYA PRABHAKARA RAO

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶26

3

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 19046 OF 2025

¶28

The Court made the following order:

¶29

Heard Sri B.Jaya Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sudeepthi Potluri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶30

The relief sought in the Writ Petition is for a direction to release the boat seized by the respondents.

¶31

It is contended that when the petitioner subject boat was idle at Gayatri3 sand ramp, Godavari bund, the respondents have seized the boats on the pretext that the petitioner has been excavating the sand unauthorizedly.

¶32

The petitioner relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs state of Gujarat¹ contends that pending investigation, the vehicles should not be subjected to adverse weather conditions which would damage the boat and its functionality, thus prays for release of the boat. The petitioner further relies on G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 26.06.2025.

¶33

It is contended on behalf of the respondents that owing to the cultural and religious importance of the river Godavari, people take bath in the river during auspicious seasons and the indiscriminate dredging by using the

¶34

1 AIR 2003 SC 638

¶35

4

¶36

dredging boats cause threat to the lives of the people apart from causing a disturbance to the river flow. The use of mechanical dredging boats for such operations has been explicitly prohibited. It is further contended that the actions of the petitioner, who was found to be excavating sand using mechanical dredging boats, constitute a flagrant violation of the environmental regulations in the said regard. And the same are contended to be in violation of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(PIL) No.8 of 2024, thus prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶37

6. Considered the rival submissions.

¶38

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would be deprived of earnings from the subject boat and which are their livelihood, if the boat is retained indefinitely, and the same would be damaged and considering the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ petition with the following directions:

¶39

a. The respondent authorities shall release the subject

¶40

boat upon each of the petitioner, depositing a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) in favour of the 5^th respondent, pending proceedings that may have already been initiated or that are contemplated against the petitioner, on the subject issue.

¶41

5

¶42

b. The said deposit will be subject to the outcome of the

¶43

proceedings that may have already been initiated or that are contemplated against the petitioner, on the subject issue.

¶44

c. The petitioner shall also furnish an undertaking to the 5^th respondent that they will not engage themselves in any of the unauthorized dredging activity, pending further investigation on the issue.

¶45