Tirumalla Venkata Ganapathi Vs the State of Ap

TIRUMALLA VENKATA GANAPATHI, S/O.NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC OWNER OF VEHICLE, R/O.3-28/1, KOTTURU, TADEPALLIGUDEM, NAVABPALEM ROAD, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 534146

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522237.

¶13

THE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT-534201.

¶14

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TADEPALLIGUDEM RURAL POLICE STATION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT-534101.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT-534101.

¶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 topleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in seizing the Tata Hitachi Super Ex-200, Machine Serial NOS.S200-25274 and 2001-13356 of the Petitioner without following the

¶18

2

¶19

relevant procedure established by law under APMMC Rules, 1966 as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and contrary to the procedure established by law and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the said vehicles of the Petitioners 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 pleased to direct the respondents to release the Tata Hitachi Super Ex-200, Machine Serial Nos.S200-25274 & 2001-13356 of the Petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.B JAYA PRABHAKARA RAO

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR HOME

¶26

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

3.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶28

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶29

3

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 6139 OF 2026

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief:

¶34

“..to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in seizing the Tata Hitachi Super Ex-200, Machine Serial Nos.S200-25274 & 2001-13356 of the Petitioner, without following the relevant procedure established by law under APMMC Rules, 1966 as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and contrary to the procedure established by law and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the said vehicles of the Petitioners forthwith in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders in the interests of justice.”

¶35

Heard Ms. S. R. P. Sundari, learned counsel representing Sri B. Jaya Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. M. Anusha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents.

¶36

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s vehicles were 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. She further submits that a direction may be given to the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders for the release of the vehicles, and she relies on the decision of this Court passed in W.P.No.1570 of 2026 dated 20.01.2026.

¶37

4

¶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

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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 vehicles bearing Nos.S200-25274 & 2001-13356 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.

¶43

1 2002 (10) SCC 283

¶44

5

¶45

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶46

¶47

JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶48

Date: 05.03.2026.

¶49