Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Gornatla Subba Rao vs State on 20 April, 2026
APHC010212442026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 10593/2026
Between:
1. GORNATLA SUBBA RAO, S/O. KOTESWARA RAO, AGED 50 YEARS,
R/O. 1-125, VEMAVARAM VILLAGE, BALLIKURUVA MANDAL,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS. PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH-522237.
2. THE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, GUNTUR
DISTRICT, GUNTUR-522502.2.
3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THULLURU POLICE STATION,
GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522237.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 Tipper Lorry bearing No. AP 39 WJ 2827 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 and
2
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 petitioners
from their custody and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
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 2nd and 3rd respondents to grant interim custody the
Tipper Lorry bearing No. AP 39 WJ 2827 of the petitioner, pending disposal of
the above writ petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. CHETAN PONNURU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION No.10593 OF 2026
ORDER:
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for
the following relief:
“declaring the action of respondents in seizing the
Tipper Lorry bearing No.AP 39 WJ 2827 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 AND 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”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s vehicle
was seized by the 3rd 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 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.9858 of 2026 dated 10.04.2026.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines
and Geology appearing for the respondents, did not refute the submission
made by the learned counsel for the petitioners since the issue involved in this
writ petition is squarely covered by an earlier decision of this Court.
4
5. It is appropriate to extract the relevant Sub-Rule (3)(iii) of Rule 26 of the
Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966:-
“For the sub-rule 3(iii) of Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor
Mineral Concession Rules,1966: If the Driver of owner of the vehicle
fails to produce a valid transit permit issued by the concerned
Assistant Director of Mines and Geology or an officer authorized by
the 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 transmit permit.”
6. Further, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Naganath Vs. State
of A.P. (W.A.No.4 of 2021) interpreted the above quoted Rule and
categorically held at para No.7 as under:
“……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.”
7. In view of the above rule position as well as in view of the above
unequivocal dictum of the Hon’ble Division Bench, this Court is inclined to
dispose of the writ petition at this stage with the consent of both parties.
8. In addition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat 1 , in its expression held that merely
keeping vehicles would not serve any fruitful purpose.
1
2002 (10) SCC 283
5
9. 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.
10. Considering the submissions made by both 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 learned counsel for both
parties, with the following directions:
A) The 2ndrespondent 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;
B) After levy of penalty and on payment of such penalty, the
petitioner shall produce the receipt of such payment and
ownership documents of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the 3rd
respondent;
C) In such an event, the 3rd respondent is hereby directed to
release the seized vehicle of the petitioner bearing No. AP 39
WJ 2827.
There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if
any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Dated :20.04.2026
Note : CC by 22.04.2026
B/o.NKA
6
93
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION No.10593 of 2026
Dated 20.04.2026
CC by 22.04.2026
KGM