Disposed¶73

Thota Narasimha Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Mar 2025WP/7227/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vehicle seizure by Mines/Vigilance authorities — lorry AP 39 UN 8489 seized by Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Ongole, alleged without procedure; Rule 26(1)(iii) transit-interception argument (vehicle stationary at weighbridge); Naganath v. State of A.P., 2021(2) ALD 535 (DB) followed; interim custody granted on Rs. 2,00,000 personal bond with ownership proof and production/non-alienation undertakings; writ disposed at admission, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Interim custody of Lorry Vehicle bearing No. AP 39 UN 8489 granted to the petitioner upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proof of ownership, together with undertakings to produce the vehicle as and when required and not to alienate, encumber or alter it; writ petition disposed of at the stage of admission without costs. ¶73

Thota Narasimha Rao Vs the State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶73

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent No. 3 in seizing the petitioner's lorry (AP 39 UN 8489) without following any procedure under law is illegal, and whether the vehicle should be released/interim custody granted to the petitioner. +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

With the consent of both learned counsels, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The respondent authorities shall give interim custody of the vehicle bearing No. AP 39 UN 8489 to the petitioner upon his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- and producing proof of his ownership of the vehicle.

¶49

Key takeaways

The petitioner shall give undertakings to produce the vehicle as and when required by the concerned authority, the Court or the Investigating Agency, and not to alienate, encumber or alter the physical features of the vehicle.ratio¶50
As a sequel to the disposal, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed; there is no order as to costs.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati (Kiranmayee Mandava, J.) — W.P. No. 7227 of 2025, decided 20.03.2025. The petitioner, owner of lorry AP 39 UN 8489, challenged the seizure of the vehicle by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Ongole (3rd respondent) as having been effected without following any procedure under law; he contended the vehicle was stationary at a weighbridge awaiting weighing, so Rule 26(1)(iii) governing interception in transit did not apply, and relied on Naganath v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2021 (2) ALD 535 (DB), wherein the Division Bench held that the Rule does not postulate that a seized vehicle cannot be released unless penalty equal to the market value of the mineral and seigniorage fee are paid. Following the earlier line of disposals on the same pattern (including W.P. No. 10954 of 2021, dated 06.07.2021), and with the consent of both sides, the Court disposed of the writ petition at the stage of admission, directing interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proof of ownership, coupled with undertakings to produce the vehicle as and when required by the authority, Court or Investigating Agency and not to alienate, encumber or alter its physical features. No order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed as a sequel.

¶1

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

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 7227 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Thota Narasimha Rao, S/o Obaiah, Aged about 38 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. D.No. 11-602-1, Viswanadhapuram, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District. (Owner of the Lorry bearing No.AP 39 UN 8489)

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

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

¶11

The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Ongole,^{PrakasamDistrict.}

¶12

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

¶13

The Station House Officer, Chimakurthy Police Station,^Prakasam District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 3'^'^ respondent in seizing the Lorry Vehicle bearing No. AP 39 UN 8489 of the petitioner without following any procedure under statutes contemplated^underlawas illegal, arbitrary, high handness and against to the principles of natural

¶16

justice and violative of Articles 19, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the and 4‘^ 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} 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 UN 8489 to the Petitioner, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SOMISETTY GANESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: ASST.GP FOR MINES &

¶20

GEOLOGY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

APHC010142682025

¶23

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

¶24

[3458]

¶25

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

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO: 7227 of 2025

Between:

Thota Narasimha Rao

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶35

1 .Somisetty Ganesh Babu Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶36

1 .GP for Home

¶37

2.GP for Mines and Geology

¶38

The Court made the following order:

¶39

The writ petition is filed challenging the action of the 3'”'* respondent in seizing the Vehicle bearing No.AP 39 UN 8489 of the petitioner without following any procedure under law.

¶40

Heard Sri Somisetty Ganesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents. With the consent of both the learned counsels, the writ

¶41

petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶42

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^{documentssofaras} 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.

¶43

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.

¶44

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:

¶45

“Having regard to the usage of the word, ‘driver’ or ‘person-in-charge 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

¶46

^2021(2) ALD535

¶47

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^tobe 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. ”

¶48

It is stated that relying on the above decision of^{theDivisionBench,the} writ petitions were disposed of earlier. One such decision^{isplacedbefore} me in W.P.No.10954 of 2021, dated 06.07.2021, placing^{relianceonthesame.} the writ petition is disposed of with the following^directions:

¶49

(i) The respondent authorities shall give interim custody of the vehicle bearing No.AP 39 UN 8489 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;

¶50

(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.

¶51