NAGANATH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 01-12-2020 in W.P.No.22076 of 2020, wherein the learned Single Judge ordered release of the vehicle, subject to complying with the terms and conditions stipulated in Clause (iii) of Sub-rule 3(ii) of Rule 26 of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (APMMC Rules, 1966), the present Writ Appeal came to be filed.

(2.) The synoptic outline of the facts of the case, which led to present Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, are as under :

(3.) Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner, would submit that the conditions of compliance of Rule 26 of APMMC Rules, 1966 does not arise in a case of this nature. According to him, the appellant is only seeking release of the vehicle and not the goods contained therein. He would submit that payment of penalty equal to market value of the mineral along with seigniorage fee prevalent at that time would arise only if the appellant is seeking release of the material. He took us through the said Rule in support of his argument. He would further submit that the respondent has no power to seize the vehicle as well, but, however, did not press for the same at this stage. In support of his plea, he relied upon the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.20538 of 2020, W.P.No.20532 of 2020, W.P.No.8090 of 2019 and W.P.No.39939 of 2018.