Disposed

Sri Murupuri Uender Reddy, v. The Tahsildar, Anumula,Nalgonda Dist.

Telangana HC19 Mar 2013WP/8163/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging the seizure of lorries used for sand transport, the Court held that owners must apply to the seizing officer for release under Rule 9-Q(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The Court directed the respondent to consider such applications within three days and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the seizing officer to consider applications for release of seized vehicles under Rule 9-Q(7) of the Rules and communicate orders within three days.

Sri Murupuri Uender Reddy, Vs The Tahsildar… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8163 of 2013

¶2

DATE: 19.03.2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

Sri Murupuri Upender Reddy, S/o.Lakshma Reddy, Rep. by Vehicle Original Owner Sri Bal Reddy Kesaram, S/o.Sai Reddy, Through Agreement of Sale of the Vehicle HMV goods Carriage Vehicle bearing No.AP 29TA 6516, #138, Hills Colony, Vanasthalipuram Near Herarlds High School, Ranga Reddy District And others.

¶5

.. Petitioners

¶6

And The Tahasildar, Anumula, Nalgonda District and others. .. Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. Janardhan Reddy Ponaka Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Assistant Government Pleader for Home Counsel for Respondent No.3 : Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj

¶8

The Court made the following:

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

Action of respondent No.1 in seizing the vehicles belonging to the petitioners on the allegation that they were used for illicit transport of sand, is questioned in this Writ Petition.

¶11

At the hearing, it has come out that the State Government in exercise of its rule making power, has made amendments to the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’) which were notified by G.O.Ms.No.154 Industries and Commerce (Mines-I) Department dated 15.11.2012.

¶12

Rule 9-Q of the Rules deals with offences. Under the said Rule, if there is a reason to believe that any machinery/vehicle is put use for extraction and transportation of sand in contravention of the Rules, such machinery/vehicle along with sand shall be confiscated by any officer authorized by the Government through notification from time to time. If any person is aggrieved by an order of confiscation, he may file an appeal to the District Court within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 9-Q of the Rules, which is relevant for the present purpose reads as under:

¶13

"Any Officer who seized any machinery/vehicle under sub-rule (1) and where he makes a report of such seizure to the Magistrate under sub-rule (2) may release the same on the execution of a bond by the owner thereof for the production of the machinery/ vehicle so released, as and when directed by the Magistrate."

¶14

From the scheme underlying Rule 9-Q of the Rules, it is evident that if any vehicle/machinery used for transportation of sand in violation of the Rules is seized, the owner of the vehicle is entitled to make an application before the officer, who seized the vehicle, and

¶15

such officer, on his making report of such seizure to the Magistrate, may release the same on execution of a bond by the owner thereof for the production of the machinery/vehicle so released, as and when directed by the Magistrate.

¶16

In the instant case, respondent No.1 is stated to have seized the petitioners’ lorries. Therefore, the petitioners have to approach respondent No.1 with appropriate applications under sub-rule (7) of the Rule 9-Q of the Rules. On such applications being filed, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the same, pass appropriate orders and communicate the same to the petitioners, within three days from the date of receipt of applications from the petitioners.

¶17

Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶18

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.10223 of 2013, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

______________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 19^th March, 2013 siva/Vgb

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.8163 of 2013

¶22

DATE: 19.03.2013

¶23

siva/Vgb

Sri Murupuri Uender Reddy, v. The Tahsildar, Anumula,Nalgonda Dist.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Murupuri Uender Reddy, v. The Tahsildar, Anumula,Nalgonda Dist.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C Subramanyam Reddy Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Sri K.Pulla Reddy Vs The State of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary to

Punugoti Venkateswara Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative

T. Roja Rani, Vs The District Panchayat Officer

Myrala Appa Rao Vs The Special Deputy Collector

C. Sumitramma, Vs The Joint Collector