Kudumula Obulapati, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sudeepthi Potluri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶24

2

¶25

It is contended by the petitioner that the respondents have seized a goods carriage tipper bearing No.APO4-TX-5667 on 23.02.2025 at near Mallakathuva Check Post, Porumamilla Town and Mandal, on the alleged ground that the petitioner is transporting the mineral without there being valid documents. Though request was made to the respondent No.2, the vehicle has not been released, thus filed the present writ petition.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.10954 of 2021 contends that, the respondent authorities are not entitled to keep the vehicle in their custody which should have been released, since the vehicle has not been involved in any offence under the Provisions of APMMC Rules.

¶27

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology contends that the vehicle may be directed to be released on certain terms that the petitioner deposits, some amount of the value of the mineral that was being transported in the vehicle.

¶28

The said submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader may not merit consideration.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.04 of 2021, wherein after referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Surenderbhai Ambalal Desai

¶30

3

¶31

Vs. State of Gujarat¹ , it was observed that no Rule postulates that vehicle cannot be released unless the sum is paid. However, while ordering the release of the vehicle in W.A.No.04 of 2021 certain conditions were imposed to the appellant therein. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology contends that the same conditions may be imposed to the present case atleast.

¶32

A perusal of the said order of the Division Bench would reflect that the conditions imposed there would apply to the said case alone. However, the conditions imposed therein would only apply to the vehicle involved in the said case. The principle laid down in the said case is that while ordering release of the vehicle, it is not necessary that the owner of the vehicle should pay the penalty. .

¶33

Having regard to the same and following the decision of this Court in W.P.No.10954 of 2021 and W.P.No.20538 of 2020, the Writ Petition is allowed and taking into the financial status of the petitioner, the following order is passed:

¶34

(i) The respondent authorities shall give interim custody of the vehicle bearing No. APO4-TX-5667 to the petitioner upon his furnishing a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- and producing proof in support of his ownership of the vehicle;

¶35

1 (2002) 10 SCC 283

¶36

4

¶37

(ii) The petitioner shall give an undertaking to produce the vehicle as

¶38

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.

¶39

As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

¶40

_______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

Date: 10.03.2025 MSI

5

101

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA