Puli Padmarao Vs the State of Ap

High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in seizing the Tipper Lorry Bearing No. AP 39 TU 6788 belongs to the petitioner without following the procedure known to law as illegal, irregular, ultra virus, arbitrary, high-handed, malafidy, contrary to the procedure established by law and against to the principles of natural justice and violative of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to release the above vehicle forthwith in the interest of justice 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

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.CH SRI NAGA MEENA KUMARI

¶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: 11039 of 2026

¶30

The Court made the following Order:

¶31

Instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief:

¶32

“.... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in seizing the Tipper Lorry Bearing No. AP 39 TU 6788 belongs to the petitioner without following the procedure known to law as illegal, irregular, ultra virus, arbitrary, highhanded, malafidy, contrary to the procedure established by law and against to the principles of natural justice and violative of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to release the above vehicle forthwith in the interest of justice and pass such other order …”.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶34

Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s vehicle was seized by the 4^th 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

¶36

4

¶37

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.

¶38

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents did not refute the 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.

¶39

It is appropriate to extract the relevant Sub-Rule (3)(iii) of Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966:-

¶40

“For the sub-rule 3(iii) of Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966: If the Driver or owner of the vehicle fails to produce a valid transit permit issued by the concerned Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, the officer in charge of the check post or barrier or during the interception of the movement of the vehicle, may require the Driver or the owner of the vehicle to pay five times of the normal Seigniorage fee as penalty in addition to the normal Seigniorage fee along with DMF and MERIT amounts for the quantity not covered under the transit permit.”

¶41

5

¶42

Further, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Naganath Vs. State of A.P. (WA No.4 of 2021), interpreted the above quoted Rule and categorically held at Para No.7 as under:

¶43

“........... On a reading of the above Rule, there is nothing to indicate, the vehicle cannot be released, unless the penalty and 5 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 driver or person-incharge 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.”

¶44

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

¶45

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel on both sides and keeping in view the earlier orders passed by this Court, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission, with the consent of both parties, with the following directions:

¶46

6

¶47

i) The 2^nd respondent is directed to pass appropriate 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;

¶48

ii) After levy of penalty and on payment of such penalty, the petitioners shall produce the receipt of such payment and ownership documents of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the 4^th respondent.

¶49

iii) In such an event, the 4^th respondent is hereby directed to release the seized vehicle of the petitioner i.e., Tipper Lorry bearing No.AP39 TU 6788.

¶50

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶51

Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶52

____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶53

Date: 24.04.2026 PSA

Puli Padmarao v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puli Padmarao v. the State of Ap

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

Kethi Krishna Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mpr Constructions Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Duddukurri Venkateswarlu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mpr Constructions Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K Subbamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M Naga Raju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh