Gangi Reddy Krishna Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH | TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE I

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 6704 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Gang! Reddy Krishna Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, Aged about 32 Years, Occ; Business, R/o. Obachettapalem, Chimakurthy, Prakasam District. (Owner of the Lorry bearing No.AP 39 UU 7709)

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati,^Guntur District.

¶11

The Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶12

The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Ongole, Prakasam^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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of respondent the action of the 2 nd & 3 rd respondent in seizing the Lorry Vehicle bearing No. AP 39 UU 7709 of the petitioner without following any procedure under statutes contemplated under law as illegal, arbitrary, high handness and against to the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 19, 21 of the Constitution of India

¶15

r

¶16

and consequently direct the respondents to release the vehicle from their custody.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances

¶19

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 Lorry Vehicle bearing No. AP 39 UU 7709 to the Petitioner, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SOMISETTY GANESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3: ASST.GP FOR MINES &

¶21

GEOLOGY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR HOME

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

APHC010130072025

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶26

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

[3458]

¶28

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 6704 of 2025

¶32

Between:

¶33

Gangi Reddy Krishna Reddy ...Petitioner

¶34

AND

¶35

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondents

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶37

I.Somisetty Ganesh Babu

¶38

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶39

1.GP for Home

¶40

2.GP for Mines and Geology

¶41

The Court made the following order:

¶42

The writ petition is filed challenging the action of^the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents in seizing the Lorry Vehicle bearing No.AP 39 UU 7709 belonging the petitioner without following any procedure^underlaw.

¶43

Heard Sri Somisetty Ganesh Babu, learned counsel for^{thepetitioner} and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents. With the consent of both the learned^{counsels,thewrit}

¶44

petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶45

f

¶46

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner^{thattheauthorities} intercepted the vehicle belonging to the petitioner while it was stationed at the weighbridge. The petitioner had produced the necessary^{documentssofar} as it was sufficiently authorized to transport the mineral. The petitioner contends that the authorities had no authority to seize a vehicle that was stationary and waiting at the weighbridge for the mineral to be weighed. Therefore, the issue of intercepting the vehicle while in transit does not arise, and as such, the provisions of Rule 26(1)(iii) would not apply.

¶47

The learned Assistant Government Pleader of Mines and Geology would submit that the petitioner is a habitual offender and indulged in clandestine business of illegal transportation of finished Black Galaxy Granite material to various places by tax evasions without generating mining transit passes thereby, caused Mineral Revenue loss to the Government Exchequer.

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Naganath Vs.State of Andhra Pradesh^, observed as follows:

¶49

“Having regard to the usage of the word, ‘driver’ or ‘person-incharge of the vehicle’, the Government Pleader tried to contend that even for release of the vehicle, the owner or the person claiming release of the vehicle^hasto pay penalty equal to the market value of the mineral along with seigniorage fee prevalent at that time. On a reading^of the above Rule, there is nothing to indicate, the vehicle

¶50

^2021 (2) ALD 535

¶51

V

¶52

cannot be released, unless the penalty and seigniorage fee is paid. All that the rule states is that the penalty equal to market value of the mineral seized along with seigniorage fee prevalent at that time can be ordered to be paid at the time of interception of the vehicle, if^driveror person-in-charge of the vehicle fails to produce a valid permit. But, nowhere the Rule postulates that the vehicle cannot be released, unless the same is paid. ’’

¶53

It is stated that relying on the above decision of the Division Bench, the writ petitions were disposed of earlier. One such decision is placed before me in W.P.No. 10954 of 2021, dated 06.07.2021, placing reliance on the same, the writ petition is disposed of with the following^directions:

¶54

(i) The respondent authorities shall give interim custody of the vehicle bearing No.AP 39 UU 7709 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;

¶55

(ii) The petitioner shall give an undertaking to produce^thevehicleas and when required either by the authority concerned^orCourtor the Investigating Agency and also give an undertaking^thathewill not alienate, encumber or alter the physical features of the vehicle.

¶56

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

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

Sd/- K. TATA RAO

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The Principal Secretary, Mines & Geology Department , State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati Guntur District.

¶64

The Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officer Ongole, Prakasam

¶65

District.

¶66

The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Ongole, Prakasam^r District. 4. One CC to Sri Somisetty Ganesh Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCS to GP for Mines & Geology. High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶67

[OUT]

¶68