(Prayer: 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 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 No. AP 39 V 6673 and AP 39 TS 1499 and AP 39 UU 7273 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 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

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 Lorries bearing No AP 39 V 6673 and AP 39 TS 1499 and AP 39 UU 7273 of the petitioners, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass)

1. Heard Sri Chetan Ponnuru, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.3.

2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in seizing the Tipper Lorries bearing Nos.AP 39 V 6673, AP 39 TS 1499 and AP 39 UU 7273 of the petitioners, in connection with crime No.248 of 2026 of Thulluru Police Station, Guntur, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the owners of the aforementioned vehicles and has been using it for transportation purposes. While so, respondent No.3 seized the vehicles on 08.08.2026, on the allegation that the vehicles were involved in transporting black soil, illegally and registered F.I.R.No.248 of 2026, dated 08.08.2026 for the offences punishable under Section 329(3), 351(2), 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 21(1), 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed to direct the respondents to release the vehicles. He placed reliance upon the order dated 29.07.2026 in W.P.No.21026 of 2026.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home did not refute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners since the issue involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by the order in the aforementioned writ petition.

5. It is appropriate to extract the 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.”

6. A Division Bench of this Court in Naganath Vs. State of A.P. (WA 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gurajat (2002 (10) SCC 283) , observed that merely keeping vehicles would not serve any fruitful purpose.

8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel on either side, with the following directions:

                  i) Respondent No.2 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 vehicles to the satisfaction of respondent No.3;

                  iii) In such an event, respondent No.3 is hereby directed to release the seized vehicles bearing Nos. AP 39 V 6673, AP 39 TS 1499 and AP 39 UU 7273 to the petitioners.

                  iv) There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.