N. Appa Rao v. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology shall conduct enquiry relating to the said seizure after calling for explanation from the petitioner and pass appropriate orders determining the penalty, if any further required to be imposed on the petitioner. Subject to the above, the…
Judgment
THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.31230 of 2011 BETWEEN N. Appa Rao. AND ... PETITIONER The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. K. NAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES & GEOLOGY GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: ORDER: Petitioner complains of seizure of his lorry bearing No.AP 31Y 8946 on the alleged violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’) and continued seizure and detention of the vehicle is questioned in this writ petition.
#2. Learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, on instructions, submits that the same vehicle has for the second time been involved in a similar offence and as such, not entitled for release under Rule 9-X(b) of the rules, as the offence is repeated once again.
#3. The proceedings of seizure, Ex.P1, shows that the vehicle in question was checked and found transmitting minerals without transit forms and the quantity of 9m3 was also seized. Rule 9-X(b) of the Rules above permits release of such seized vehicles, if involved in the offence for the first time on specified penalty. The petitioner’s vehicle is reported to be involved for the second time in a similar offence and as such, the penalty as applicable to first time offenders cannot be applied to this case. However, continued detention of the vehicle is detrimental to the petitioner and is of no use to the respondents and as such, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to release the vehicle subject to the following conditions:
#1. Petitioner shall pay penalty quantified at Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only).
#2. Petitioner shall give an undertaking before the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology concerned that he shall not alienate the vehicle and that he shall produce the vehicle as and when required.
#3. The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology shall conduct enquiry relating to the said seizure after calling for explanation from the petitioner and pass appropriate orders determining the penalty, if any further required to be imposed on the petitioner. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 1, 2011 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 02.12.2011. (B/o) DSK
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.