Disposed¶50

Sundar Rao v. The State of Andhra pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Jan 2025WP/50/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP.No.50 of 2019, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, decided 07/01/2025 by Dr Justice K Manmadha Rao; seizure of Lorry AP-31-TD 0858 and JCB AP-31-YETR 2260 challenged under Article 226 as violative of Articles 19 and 21; coverage claimed of order dated 13.04.2023 in WP No.16935 of 2017; interim order — bank guarantee of Rs.1 lakh per vehicle; penalty under clause 16 of G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 4.9.2019; new Sand Policy G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 8.7.2024; writ petition closed without costs; interlocutory applications closed.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; the writ petition was closed with no order as to costs, and pending interlocutory applications were directed to stand closed. ¶50

Sundar Rao Vs The State of Andhra pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

the honourable dr justice K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 50 OF 201Q

¶5

Between:

¶6

Sundar Rao Abothu, S/o Appa Rao Owner of vehicle Bearing No

¶7

H.No. 4-22/A, Mettamedapalem Sontyam, Anandapuram, Visakhapatnam

¶8

Gurugupelli Naveen, S/o. Prasada Rao, Owner of Vehicle Bearing No.

¶9

AP-31-YETR-2260, R/o. 1-52, Akkivaram Tholada Srikakulam

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Principal Secretary, Mines and Geoiogy Department, Secretariat Buiidings, Veiagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur

¶13

The Assistant Director of Mines and Geoiogy, Srikakulam , Srikakulam District

¶14

The Station House Office, Amadalavalasa police Station Srikakulam

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated i m the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seized the vehicles of petitioners are owners of Vehicles viz. Bearing Nos. AP-31-TD 0858 (Sundara Rao Abothu) Lorry AP-31-YETR 2260 (Gurugubelli Naveen) JCB, belonging to the petitioners without following any procedure know to law. as arbitrary, illegal, and violatile of Article 19,21 of

¶17

¶18

the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the above vehicles from the custody of the respondents^forthwith.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances}

¶21

» stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant interim custody of the vehicles Bearing Nos. AP-31-TD 0858 (Sundara Rao Abothu) Lorry^AP-31-YETR 2260 (Gurugubelli Naveen) JCB, belonging to the petitioners pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR MINES^ANDGEOLOGY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

APHC010000992019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶27

[3310]

¶28

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 50/2019

Between:

Sundar Rao

...PETITIONER

AND

State Of Ap ...RESPONDENT

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶39

1.SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶41

1 .GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP)

¶42

The Court made the following:

¶43

ORDER:

¶44

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionofIndiafor}

¶45

the following relief:

¶46

“.. .to issued a writ order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in^{seizedthevehiclesofpetitionersare} owners of Vehicles viz., bearing Nos. AP 31 TD 0858 (Sundara Rao Abothu) - Lorry AP 31 YETR 2260 (Gurugubeli Naveen)-JCB. Belonging to the^{petitionerswithoutfollowing} any procedure know to law, as arbitrary, illegal and violative^{of Article19,21oftheConstitutionof} India and consequently direct the respondents to riease^{theabovevehiclesfromthecustody} of the respondens forthwith and be pleased to pass ”

¶47

Heard Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. P. Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶48

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 13.04.2023 passed in WP No.16935 of 2017, wherein this Court has ordered for release of the vehicle on payment of penalty by the petitioners.

¶49

Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed for allowing the writ petition as it is not covered by the order dated 13.04.2023 passed by this Court in WP No.16935 of 2017. She submits that, in view of the interim order of this Court, the respondents are directed to release the said vehicles on condition of petitioners furnishing bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.1 Lakh for each vehicle within ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. So, in view of the same, the petitioners have to pay penalty for release of the seized vehicle under G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 4.9.2019, as per clause 16 of the said G.O. But, now, in view of changing Sand Policy, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.43, Industries and Commerce (Mines-lll) Department, dated 8.7.2024. Therefore, in view of the interim orders of this Court, no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition and the same may be closed.

¶50