M/s.Nikitha Enterprises, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, THULLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522237

¶15

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TULLURU POLICE STATION, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH522237

¶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 pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus

¶18

2

¶19

declaring the action of respondents in seizing the Lorry bearing No. AP 39 WH 3159 of the Petitioner without following any procedure under statutes as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the procedure contemplated under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules,1966 and provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957., and the rules made there under apart from being violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioner from their custody and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 to direct the and 3rd respondents to grant interim custody the Lorry bearing Nos. AP 39 WH 3159 of the Petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.ANAND KUMAR KOCHIRI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR HOME

¶26

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

3.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶28

3

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 10054 of 2026

¶30

The Court made the following Order:

¶31

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in seizing the Lorry bearing No.AP39 WH 3159 and its Trailer belonging to the petitioner, in connection with FIR No.95 of 2026, without following the procedure under the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s vehicle was seized by the 3^rd respondent without authority of law and in violation of the provisions of Sub-Rule (3)(iii) of Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. He further submits that a direction may be given to the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders for the release of the vehicle, and he relies on the decision of this Court passed in W.P.No.1570 of 2026 dated 20.01.2026.

¶34

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and

¶35

Geology appearing for the respondents did not refute the

¶36

4

¶37

submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner since the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by an earlier decision of this Court.

¶38

Considering the submissions made and with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission.

¶39

In addition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat¹ , in its expression held that merely keeping vehicles would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶40

Apart from the above, it has been brought to the notice of this Court by the respective counsel that similar orders have been passed in identical matters. Thus, this Court is inclined to pass a similar order.

¶41

Accordingly, by following the aforesaid judgments, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 3^rd respondent to pass orders in terms of Sub-Rule (3)(iii) of Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and collect the due seigniorage fee and penalty, as per law and release the vehicle

¶42

1 (2002) 10 SCC 283

¶43

5

¶44

bearing No.AP39 WH 3159 seized by the 3^rd respondent to the petitioner, within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶46

____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶47

Date: 16.04.2026 PSA

M/s.Nikitha Enterprises, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Nikitha Enterprises, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Shiva Kumar Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Industries and Commerce

Summer Rocks Vs the State of Ap

Sri.T.R. Muthukumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Balisetty Ajay Madhav Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Raheem Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Srinu, Vs Sri M. Nagabhushana Sarma