Allowed petitioner’s writ petition declaring seizure of lorry carrying finished granite illegal. Ordered release of vehicle and goods, citing violation of Novel Granites Ltd. judgment restricting state power to raw minerals only.
Release of lorry PB 13 Z 0906 along with seized granite to the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*** THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY**
+ WRIT PETITION No.27094 of 2013
%19.09.2013
# M/s.Siva Sai Granites, Guntur
.. Petitioner
Vs. $ The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Hyderabad and others
.. Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. P.Vijaya Lakshmi Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Government Pleader for Mines and Geology
Counsel for respondent No.4: Assistant Government Pleader for Home
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2010 (1) ALD 812
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27094 of 2013
Date: 19.09.2013
Between:
M/s.Siva Sai Granites, Guntur
.. Petitioner
and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Hyderabad and others
.. Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. P.Vijaya Lakshmi Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Government Pleader for Mines and Geology
Counsel for respondent No.4: Assistant Government Pleader for Home
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seizing the lorry bearing registration No.PB 13 Z 0906 along with finished product of black granite slabs belonging to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.
When this writ petition came up for admission and hearing on 18.09.2013, the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology sought for a passover for instructions and as the case could not be taken up in the afternoon session, the same is listed today. Today, at the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology has submitted that since the persons in the lorry transporting finished granite did not show evidence of payment of any seignorage fee by the supplier, the lorry was seized along with the granite.
I n Novel Granites Ltd. and others vs. Govt. of A.P. and others[1] , this Court has considered the validity of explanation to Rule 2(h) of the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Dealers Rules, 2000 (for short ‘the Rules’), by which the processed mineral and final products were treated as ‘mineral’ and by the detailed judgment, it has struck down the explanation as being ultra vires the rule making power of the State Government. This Court at para 53 of the said judgment held as under:
53. From the detailed discussion undertaken above, the conclusion is irresistible that the explanation to Rule 2(h) by which the processed mineral and final products are treated as ‘Mineral’ is ultra vires the rule making power of the State Government and the same is accordingly struck down. Consequently, the definition of ‘Dealer’ in Rule 2(1)(d) shall be read down as to exclude the persons, who undertake manufacturing/processing activity using mineral as raw material. It is, however, made clear that the State Government and its officials authorized for this purpose shall be free to inspect and check any premises or factory/industry where the mineral is stored before it is
processed/manufactured and exercise the power of seizure of mineral before it is processed and converted into a finished product, if it is found that such mineral has not suffered royalty and/or dead rent.
The learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology has conceded that the said judgment has become final and the same is holding the field. As per the said judgment, the respondents have no power or authority to exercise any control over manufacturing/processing activity using mineral as raw material except to the extent of inspecting and checking any premises or factory/industry, where the mineral is stored before it is processed/manufactured.
The learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology further stated that the respondents have been insisting on the persons transporting finished products of granite to show proof of the raw granite suffering seignorage fee and that in the absence of such proof, the lorries are being seized. In my opinion, this procedure being followed by the respondents is in blatant violation of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, in that, the State Government and its functionaries have no power or authority to intercept and seize the vehicles transporting finished granite. At best, the respondents can check the premises of the manufacturer of the finished product of granite as permitted by the aforesaid judgment. The procedure being adopted by the respondents appears to be causing grave hardship to the transporters of finished granite as in the present case.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to forthwith release the lorry referred to above along with the seized granite to the petitioner.
The Court has contemplated to initiate contempt proceedings against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for violation of the judgment in Novel Granites (supra). However, the learned Government Pleader for Mines
and Geology has undertaken that he will give written advice to and see that respondent No.2 will not intercept and seize the lorries transporting finished granite. Having considered this submission of the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, this Court has dropped further action against the respondents for the present. If this Court finds any such instance of seizure of finished granite, in future, it will exercise the option of initiating suo motu contempt proceedings.
As a sequel to allowing the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.33556 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
19th September, 2013 Note: 1. The Registry shall communicate
this order to respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2. L.R. copies to be marked
(B/o) GHN
[1] 2010 (1) ALD 812
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the seizing of lorry transporting finished granite products without proof of royalty payment on raw granite was legal under the judgment in Novel Granites Ltd.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Novel Granites Ltd. and others vs. Govt. of A.P.Applied¶26
2010 (1) ALD 812
M/s. Siva Sai Granites, Guntur
The Government of Andhra Pradesh
C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
