logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1093 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Writ Petition Nos. 17324, 17356 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
Parties : Dera Venkateswara Rao Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary, Guntur & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: B. Jaya Prabhakara Rao, Advocate. For the Respondent: Government Pleader for Home, Government Pleader for Revenue, Government Pleader for Irri & Cad, Government Pleader for Mines & Geology.
Date of Judgment : 01-07-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature pf Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 in seizing the Boat of the Petitioner in connection with FIR No. 107 of 2026 without following the procedure known to the law under APMMC Rules, 1966 as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and contrary to the procedure established by law and against to the principles of natural justice and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the above said named Boat of the Petitioner forthwith in the interest of justice 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 respondents to release the Boat of the Petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and pass such)

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:-

               “to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 in seizing the Boat of the Petitioner in connection with FIR No. 107 of 2026 without following the procedure known to the law under APMMC Rules, 1966 as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and contrary to the procedure established by law and against to the principles of natural justice and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the above said named Boat of the Petitioner forthwith in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders….”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government pleader for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner’s subject boat was idle at Gangamma Revu, Dowlaiswaram, the respondents have seized the boat on the pretext that the petitioner has been excavating the sand unauthorizedly.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs state of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638), wherein, it is held that pending investigation, the vehicle should not be subjected to adverse weather conditions which would damage the boat and its functionality, thus prays for release of the boat. He further relies on G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 26.06.2025.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents submits that indiscriminate dredging by using the dredging boats cause threat to the lives of the people apart from causing a disturbance to the water flow. The use of mechanical dredging boats for such operations has been explicitly prohibited. It is further contended that the action of the petitioner, who was found to be excavating sand using mechanical dredging boat, constitute a flagrant violation of the environmental regulations in the said regard. And the same are contended to be in violation of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(PIL) No.8 of 2024, thus prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, it is observed that the petitioner would be deprived of earnings from the subject boat, which is his livelihood. If the boat is retained indefinitely, the same would be damaged.

7. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ petition with the following directions:

               a. The respondent authorities shall release the subject boat upon the petitioner, depositing a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) in favour of the 5th respondent, pending proceedings that may have already been initiated or that are contemplated against the petitioner, on the subject issue.

               b. The said deposit will be subject to the outcome of the proceedings that may have already been initiated or that are contemplated against the petitioner, on the subject issue.

               c. The petitioner shall also furnish an undertaking to the 5th respondent that he will not engage himself in any of the unauthorized dredging activity, pending further investigation on the issue.

8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal