THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :27236 of 2007 Date: 23.6.2010 Between:
Mohan Setty . PETITIONER AND The Asst. Director of Mines & Geology and others.
. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.A. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : A.G.P. for Mines & Geology Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : A.G.P. for Home The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :27236 of 2007 ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare proceedings dated 10.12.2007, whereby, respondent No.1 requested respondent No.3 to keep the lorry bearing No. AP 36 W 4596 under the safe custody until payment of penalty is made by the defaulter and that the vehicle may be released after producing the release order.
In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that when his technical staff went on camp to Uppatla and Vilochavaram to check transportation of sand on 10.12.2007, they have noticed that as many as nine lorries were found carrying excess quantity of sand, and that all the owners of the lorry, except the petitioner, have paid the penalty as envisaged under G.O. Ms. No. 24, dated 12.2.2007. It is also averred that the weighment of the sand was made at the nearest weigh bridge and on calculation of the excess weight, the petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 8,820/- for the excess weight of 8.820 Metric tonnes.
No reply affidavit has been filed controverting these averments.
By the interim order dated 20.12.2007, this Court directed the respondents to release the lorry in favour of the petitioner on the petitioner filing an undertaking to the effect that the lorry will be produced as and when required.
It is represented by the learned counsel for the parties that in pursuance of the said interim order, the said lorry was released to the petitioner.
The fact that under the above mentioned G.O., penalty is liable to be paid for overloading of sand is not in dispute. Therefore, if the petitioner has indulged in transportation of sand in excess of the permissible quantity, he is liable to pay the penalty. However, in my view, before calling upon the petitioner to pay the said penalty, it is incumbent upon respondent No.1 to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders after considering the explanation, if any, to be filed by the petitioner.
Accordingly, Respondent No.1 is directed to issue a notice to the petitioner providing all the relevant material in support of the allegation of overloading of the lorry. The petitioner shall file his reply, if any, within two weeks from the date of receipt of such notice. After considering the explanation, if any, filed by the petitioner, respondent No.1 shall pass appropriate order before making demand towards the penalty.
Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 23rd June, 2010 pnb