Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
M. Nagendra vs State Of A.P. (W.A.No.4 Of 2021) on 22 May, 2026
APHC010283582026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH [3548]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
WRIT PETITION NO: 14737/2026
Between:
1. M. NAGENDRA, S/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 30
YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 76-14-59/1, MASJEED STREET,
BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. MUDDANGULA KRISHNA, S/O. KANNAIAH, AGED 51
YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 4-3, DONABANDA, KACHAVARAM,
IBRAHIMPATNAM, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE DF 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.
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 tomay be 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
Tipper Lorries bearing Nos. AP 39 V 9453 and AP 39 TO 6219 of
the petitioners 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
2
from being violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of
Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to
release the vehicles of the petitioners from their custody and
pass such
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 may be pleased to direct
the 2nd and 3rd respondents to grant interim custody the Tipper
Lorries bearing Nos. AP 39 V 9453 pd AP 39 TO 6219 of the
petitioners, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass
such
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. CHETAN PONNURU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY
The Court made the following:
3
ORDER:
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners
under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following
main prayer:
“….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 Lorries bearing Nos. AP 39 V 9453 and AP
39 TQ 6219 of the petitioners 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
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
vehicles of the petitioners from their custody and
pass….”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing
for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners’ vehicles were 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
4
be given to the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders
for the release of the vehicles, and he relies on the decision of
this Court passed in W.P.No.10849 of 2026 dated 23.04.2026.
4. 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.
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 or
owner of the vehicle fails to produce a valid transit
permit issued by the concerned Assistant 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 transit permit.”
5
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 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 addition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gurajat, in its expression,
held that merely keeping vehicles would not serve any fruitful
purpose.
8. Therefore, in view of the submissions made by both the
learned counsel and in view of the earlier orders passed by this
Court and for the reasons stated therein, this Writ Petition is
allowed at the stage of admission with the following directions:
6
i) The 2nd respondent 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;
ii) After levy of penalty and on payment of such penalty,
the petitioners shall produce the receipt of such payment and
ownership documents of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the 3rd
respondent;
iii) In such an event, the 3rd respondent is hereby directed
to release the seized vehicles of the petitioners viz., Tipper
Lorries bearing Nos. AP 39 V 9453 and AP 39 TQ 6219.
There shall be no order as to costs.
9. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
________________________
TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J
Date: 22.05.2026
anr/SR
7
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
Writ Petition No.14737 of 2026
Date:22.05.2026
anr/SR
[ad_1]
Source link
