IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.29957 of 2014 BETWEEN T. Srinu Suryanarayana.
AND ... PETITIONERS The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner submits that he is the owner of JCB bearing Engine No.HOOO24562. It is stated that respondent Nos.2 to 4 have seized the said vehicle alleging that the vehicle is used for excavation of sand from the licence area in Nadivampu Village, East Godavari District.
It is stated that the said vehicle was seized by respondent No.2 and respondent Nos.3 and 4 have kept them in the safe custody. Petitioner states that he has nothing to do with the excavation and the vehicle was kept on hire by third party. However, since his vehicle is seized, he seeks release of the said vehicle by the present writ petition.
3. Learned Government Pleader has placed before the court policy of the State, which is enunciated in G.O.Ms.No.95, Industries and Commerce (Mines IV) Department, dated 28.08.2014. Under clause 18 of the said G.O. when the vehicles are found involved in the offences like illegal extraction or transportation of sand, penalty was specified on the vehicles categorised. However, the nature of the vehicle covered thereunder is either a tractor or a lorry and the JCB involved in the present case is not covered in any of the categories listed under the aforesaid clause 18 of the said G.O.
4. Both the learned counsel have placed before the court directions of this court in 1) W.P.No.33579 of 2013 dated 22.11.2013, 2) W.P.No.5798 of 2014 dated 03.03.2014, and 3) W.P.No.717 of 2014 dated 05.02.2014. All the said orders are passed in view of Rule 9-L and 9-Q of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.
5. However, since the vehicle, in question, is only seized and no proceeding as to enquiry was taken up, in my view, keeping the vehicle in the custody of respondent Nos.3 and 4 would not serve any purpose and it would be just and appropriate to release the vehicle to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.
Writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the following directions:
1. Petitioner is at liberty to approach respondent No.2 and make an application for release of the vehicle.
2. On such application being made, respondent No.2 shall pass appropriate order as to release by directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the value of the JCB, as it stands on the date of seizure and for that purpose respondent No.2 is at liberty to take assistance of Motor Vehicle Inspector.
3. Petitioner shall also undertake that he shall not alienate or otherwise create a third party interest with regard to the said vehicle and shall produce the vehicle as and when required and called upon by respondent No.2
4. Respondent No.2 shall also undertake enquiry into the matter as to whether there is any violation on the part of the petitioner or any other person with regard to illegal extraction or illegal transportation of sand and an appropriate order be passed after notice to the concerned parties by giving them an opportunity.
5. The order of release passed hereinabove shall be subject to further orders that would be passed by respondent No.2.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 13, 2014 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 15.10.2014 (B/o) LMV