WP/30932/2021 of Bhavar Lal, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2021

ORDER:

The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3[rd] respondent in seizing the lorry bearing No.RJ 21 GC 1347 of the petitioner without following the procedure contemplated under law as illegal and for consequential direction to the 3[rd ]respondent to release the vehicle.

2. Petitioner’s case succinctly is thus:

(a) Petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing No.RJ 21 GC 1347. On 12.12.2021 at 4.00 A.M., near Chimakurthi East Bypass Road, the vehicle was stopped by the police and after check they found the Granite Slabs in the vehicle and without hearing the explanation of the driver, forcibly seized the vehicle and kept the same in the custody and registered a case in Cr.No.338/2021 dated 12.12.2021 for the offence under Section 420 IPC, Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2021 and Section 26(1) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Bachina Hanumantha Rao and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology representing respondents 1 & 2.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Rule 26(3)(iii) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘APMMC Rules”), Mining Authorities are empowered to collect seigniorage fee and penalty but they have no authority to seize the vehicle. He thus prayed to direct the respondents to release the vehicle.

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology would argue that as per Rule 26(3)(iii) of APMMC Rules as amended by G.O.Ms.No.35, Industries & Commerce (Mines-III) Department, dated 01.07.2020, if the driver or owner of vehicle fails to produce valid e-transit permit issued by the concerned Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, the officer intercepting the vehicle has the power to 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 and in consonance with the said rule the vehicle and the granite were seized and if the driver or the owner of the vehicle seeks release of the vehicle, they have to comply with Rule 26(3)(iii) of the APMMC Rules.

6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner is only concerned with the vehicle and he is not the owner of the material in the vehicle and Rule 26(3)(iii) of the APMMC Rules is predominantly aimed against the mineral that was being transported without necessary documents and the authorities have every power to seize the mineral which is not covered with documents but they have no power to seize the vehicle under the guise of Rule 26(3)(iii). He further submitted that the petitioner lives on transportation of the vehicle.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.RJ 21 GC 1347 and he is not concerned with the granite slabs found in his vehicle which were allegedly not supported by the required documents. Be that it may, Rule 26(3)(iii) of the APMMC Rules as amended by G.O.Ms.No.35, Industries & Commerce (Mines-III) Department, dated 01.07.2020, which empowers the authorities to impose penalty for unauthorized quarrying and transporting minor minerals, reads thus:

“If the Driver or owner of the vehicle fails to produce a valid e-transit permit issued by the concerned Asst. Director of Mines & Geology or an officer authorized by the Director of Mines & 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 e-transit permit.”

(a) Basing on the above rule, it is argued by the learned Government Pleader that the respondent authorities are empowered to require the Driver or the owner of the vehicle to pay Five times of the normal Seigniorage fee as penalty for not holding the permit and bills for the transported mineral. This issue is no more resintigra and same is covered by the order dated 17.02.2021 in Writ Appeal No.4 of 2021 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It was observed thus:

“7.Having regard to the usage of the word, ‘driver’ or ‘person-in-charge of the vehicle’, the Government Pleader tried to contend that even for release of the vehicle, the owner or the person claiming release of the vehicle has to pay penalty equal to the market value of the mineral along with seigniorage fee prevalent at that time. 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 in-charge of the vehicle’, the Government Pleader tried to contend that even for release of the vehicle, the owner or the person claiming release of the vehicle has to pay penalty equal to the market value of the mineral along with seigniorage fee prevalent at that time. 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-in-charge 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.

8. On the other hand, a comprehensive reading of the said Rule show that the said provision was mainly directed against the mineral that was being transported in the vehicle without any valid permit. Hence, the argument of the learned Government Pleader has no legs to stand.”

(b) On the above observation, the Division Bench was pleased to allow the appeal and ordered release of the vehicle on certain terms and conditions. The above judgment squarely applies to the case on hand. Therefore, the authorities cannot seize the subject vehicle pending proceedings.

8. Having regard to the above factual and legal position, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and lorry bearing No.RJ 21 GC 1347 can be ordered to be released.

9. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and ordered as follows:

(i) The respondent authorities shall get the value of the vehicle assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector concerned in the presence of the owner of the vehicle/petitioner and thereupon, the petitioner shall furnish either bank guarantee or immovable property security to the value of the vehicle as assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and also execute a personal bond to the satisfaction of the authority concerned; assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector concerned in the presence of the owner of the vehicle/petitioner and thereupon, the petitioner shall furnish either bank guarantee or immovable property security to the value of the vehicle as assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and also execute a personal bond to the satisfaction of the authority concerned;

(ii) The interim custody of the vehicle shall be given in favour of the petitioner, subject to producing proof in support of the ownership of the vehicle; the petitioner, subject to producing proof in support of the ownership of the vehicle;

(iii) The petitioner shall give an undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required either by the authority concerned or Court or the Investigating Agency and also give an undertaking that he will not alienate, encumber or alter the physical features of the vehicle. vehicle as and when required either by the authority concerned or Court or the Investigating Agency and also give an undertaking that he will not alienate, encumber or alter the physical features of the vehicle.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_________________________

U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

31.12.2021 TSNR / MVA