logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 259 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Writ Petition No. 5174 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Parties : Danduboina Veeranna & Another Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary, Mines And Geology Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: B Jaya Prabhakara Rao, Advocate. For the Respondents: GP For Home, GP For Revenue, GP For Mines And Geology.
Date of Judgment : 20-02-2026
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 to pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd nature Respondent in seizing the Lorry bearing No.AP37TE8485 of the 1st Petitioner and Lorry bearing No.AP39TN3777 of the 2nd Petitioner, without following the relevant procedure established by law under APMMC Rules, 1966 as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and contrary to the procedure established by law and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the said vehicles of the Petitioners forthwith in the interest of justice 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 respondents to release the Lorry bearing NO.AP37TE8485 of the 1st Petitioner and Lorry bearing NO.AP39TN3777 of the 2nd Petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and pass)

1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief:

                  “……..pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd nature Respondent in seizing the Lorry bearing No.AP37TE8485 of the 1st Petitioner and Lorry bearing No.AP39TN3777 of the 2nd Petitioner, without following the relevant procedure established by law under APMMC Rules, 1966 as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and contrary to the procedure established by law and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the said vehicles of the Petitioners forthwith in the interest of justice 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 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.1570 of 2026 dated 20.01.2026.

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. Considering the submissions made and with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission.

6. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat1, in its expression held that merely keeping vehicles would not serve any fruitful purpose.

7. 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 similar order.

8. Accordingly, by following the aforesaid judgments, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the 3rd respondent to pass 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 and release the seized vehicles bearing Nos.AP37TE8485 & AP39TN3777 of the petitioners, within a period of one (01) week, from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal