The High Court reiterated that authorities must adhere strictly to the procedure under Rule 26(3)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 before detaining and releasing vehicles seized in minor mineral cases. Release must follow due verification, after collecting seigniorage and penalty, in line with earlier binding precedent. This ruling further cements procedural safeguards for vehicle owners and guides lower courts and administrative authorities across Andhra Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/28621/2025 of BOCHU DURGAMMA Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH |
| CNR | APHC010554532025 |
| Date of Registration | 15-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | Justice Kiranmayee Mandava |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on authorities in Andhra Pradesh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms earlier AP High Court decision in WP No.20735 of 2024 |
| Type of Law | Administrative, Mining, Natural Resources |
| Questions of Law | Whether authorities may seize and detain vehicles for alleged violations of AP Minor Mineral Concession Rules without following statutory procedure, and under what terms such vehicles should be released. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that vehicles seized for alleged contravention of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 cannot be detained or released arbitrarily; authorities must follow the mandatory procedure set out in Rule 26(3)(iii). Upon satisfaction of conditions (collection of due seigniorage and penalty, and verification of records), authorities are duty-bound to release seized vehicles promptly. This principle is in consonance with the earlier High Court ruling (WP No.20735/2024), ensuring administrative action is not arbitrary and that rights under Article 19(1)(g) are protected. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | WP No.20735 of 2024 (AP High Court, dated 20.09.2024) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Adherence to statutory procedure (Rule 26(3)(iii)), principle of natural justice, previous High Court precedent |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners’ vehicles (two Tipper Lorries and one Excavator) were seized by police for alleged violation of mining rules. The seizure was challenged on grounds of non-compliance with procedural safeguards under the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. Petitioners argued and respondents conceded that earlier court precedent governed the issue. The dispute thus centered on proper application of Rule 26(3)(iii) to the facts. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All administrative authorities and subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and similar cases nationwide |
| Follows | WP No.20735 of 2024 (AP High Court) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms the binding procedure under Rule 26(3)(iii) AP Minor Mineral Concession Rules for seized vehicle release.
- Clarifies that administrative authorities cannot detain seized vehicles beyond what is warranted under the statute; release must not be arbitrary.
- Explicit adoption of prior High Court holding, emphasizing prompt disposal and vehicle release within one week after satisfaction of statutory requirements.
- Vehicle owners can rely on this decision to demand procedural compliance and timely release.
- The precedent expedites the resolution of seized vehicle cases by limiting administrative discretion and requiring objective verification.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court analysed the core question of whether the detention and release of vehicles seized by authorities in alleged violations of mineral concession rules must adhere to Rule 26(3)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.
- Petitioners highlighted the defendants’ non-compliance with statutory procedure; the State did not contest applicability of precedent.
- The Court relied squarely on its prior ruling in WP No.20735 of 2024, which prescribes strict compliance with the procedure for seizure, determination of due seigniorage fee and penalty, and subsequent release of the concerned vehicles.
- The judgment emphasized that statutory mandates and principles of natural justice must be observed, especially given the fundamental right to carry on trade and business.
- Authorities were directed to complete requisite verification, collect dues, and release the vehicles within a strictly specified time frame.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Seizure of vehicles was done without authority of law and in violation of procedure under Rule 26(3)(iii), AP Minor Mineral Concession Rules.
- Sought court direction to enforce statutory compliance and expedite release of vehicles as per existing High Court precedent (WP No.20735/2024).
State/Respondents:
- Did not dispute the issue; conceded applicability of High Court’s earlier decision.
- Was represented by Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, who agreed the issue was covered by binding precedent.
Factual Background
Petitioners’ two tipper lorries and one hydraulic excavator were seized by the fourth respondent (police) in Nellore District for alleged violation of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. Petitioners claimed that the seizure was contrary to the procedure established by law, invoked Article 19(1)(g), and sought immediate release. The State had previously faced and addressed a similar issue in WP No.20735 of 2024.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted Rule 26(3)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.
- It held that this provision prescribes the exclusive statutory mechanism for authorities when they seize vehicles for alleged minor mineral rule violations — namely, verification of records, collection of due seigniorage fee and penalty, and prompt release once compliance is established.
- No expansive or restrictive reading applied — the Court required strict adherence to the literal procedural text.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – This decision strictly applies and reiterates previously settled legal position of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the point of seized vehicle release under the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.