Bathula Venkanna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

[3329]

¶2

APHC010031032026

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2124/2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

BATHULA VENKANNA, S/O. VEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEAR, C- LL-30 GF-4,VAMBEY COLONY, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-520015.(OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO. AP.05 TM 2979) R/O. DOOR NO. 3-72, POST OFFICE VEEDHI, IBRAHIMPATNAM, MULAPADU JUDPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL, NTR DISTRICT521456

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT, OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522238 2.

¶12

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

¶13

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THULLURU POLICE STATION, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522237

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶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 topleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in seizing the Lorry bearing No. AP 05 TM 2979 of the petitioner without following any

¶16

2

¶17

procedure under statutes as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the procedure contemplated under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 provisions of the Mines and Minerals (DevelopmentRegulation) 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

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶19

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 pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in seizing the Lorry bearing No. AP 05 TM 2979 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 & provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development & 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

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

3

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO: 2124/2026

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶30

of the India seeking the following reliefs:-

¶31

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in seizing the Lorry bearing No.AP 05 TM 2979 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 & 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 such other order.”

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶33

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

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities seized the vehicles belonging to the petitioner 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.32021 of 2025, dated 18.11.2025.

¶35

4

¶36

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and

¶37

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.

¶38

Considering the submissions made and with 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 the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities 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 bearing No.AP 05 TM 2979 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 the order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶41

________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

27.01.2026 TPS

5

29

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA