Vehicles purportedly involved in unauthorized sand transport in Andhra Pradesh may not be subject to wholesale seizure if G.O.Ms.No.100, Industries and Commerce (Mines-II), Department, dated 26.06.2025 is followed; authorities are instead required to levy penalties under Clause 19(a), with release of vehicles upon penalty payment. This judgment affirms and applies the principles set out in a prior High Court order (W.P.No.20122 of 2025), clarifying the proper administrative course under the 2025 G.O.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/28592/2025 of DOVA ANIL KUMAR Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, CNR APHC010553172025 |
| 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 |
| Bench | Single Judge — Justice Kiranmayee Mandava |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh High Court; affirms recent precedent |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms order in W.P.No.20122 of 2025 dated 01.08.2025 |
| Type of Law | Administrative, Mineral Regulation, Constitutional Law (Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that as per Clause 19(a) of G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 26.06.2025, upon finding a vehicle involved in unauthorized sand transport, authorities are to levy penalties as prescribed and, upon payment of such penalty and satisfaction of ownership, must release the seized vehicles. Blanket seizure without following this procedure is not authorized. The decision follows and reaffirms the earlier order in W.P.No.20122/2025 and ensures administrative action conforms to newly notified penalty norms instead of older, potentially harsher procedures. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | W.P.No.20122 of 2025 (order dated 01.08.2025) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners’ tractors and trailers were seized at Krishna River Ramp, Amudarlanka Village, based on allegations of transporting sand without valid documents. FIR 295/2025 registered under Section 303(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 AP Water, Land and Trees Act. Petitioners deny illegal activity and challenge the seizure, citing non-compliance with the procedure prescribed by the APMMC Rules and G.O.Ms.No.100 (2025). |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and administrative authorities within the jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts interpreting similar G.O.s or statutes |
| Follows | W.P.No.20122 of 2025 (AP High Court, order dated 01.08.2025) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that under G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 26.06.2025, authorities are to levy penalties — not seize and detain vehicles indefinitely — for proscribed sand transport violations.
- Vehicle release is mandatory upon payment of penalty and submission of ownership proof, streamlining relief for affected vehicle owners.
- The judgment provides a template writ remedy for similar future seizure cases, citing Clause 19(a) of the 2025 G.O. and the binding precedent of W.P.No.20122/2025.
- Lawyers should insist on strict compliance with procedural safeguards in mineral regulation cases and can seek immediate vehicle release by invoking this order.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court carefully considered the petitioners’ submissions regarding improper seizure without lawful authority under current regulations.
- Clause 19(a) of G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 26.06.2025 was cited as the controlling provision, setting out a penalty framework for first-time and repeated violations instead of permitting continuing vehicle detention.
- The respondents were directed, as per the precedent in W.P.No.20122/2025 (AP High Court), to levy the prescribed penalty and, upon satisfaction of payment and proof of vehicle ownership, release the impounded vehicles.
- The order emphasizes procedure established by law and natural justice, holding that seizure without following the specific G.O.-prescribed procedure is impermissible.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioners use the vehicles for legitimate agricultural and commercial purposes.
- Seizure was arbitrary and did not follow statutory procedure or the process mandated by G.O.Ms.No.100 (2025).
- Authorities should levy only penalties in line with the new G.O., not effectuate indefinite seizure.
- Relief should be in line with the order passed in W.P.No.20122/2025 and the penalty-release regime outlined in Clause 19(a) of G.O.Ms.No.100.
Respondent
- Allegation that petitioners were transporting sand without valid documents.
- Vehicle seizure based on FIR 295/2025 and legal provisions cited.
Factual Background
Petitioners’ tractors and trailers were seized at Krishna River Ramp, Amudarlanka Village, Challapalli Mandal, Krishna District, on allegations of transporting sand without valid documentation. An FIR (No.295/2025) was registered against them under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002. The petitioners contended that the seizure was illegal and not in line with the APMMC Rules and the mandatory penalty regime introduced through G.O.Ms.No.100 (2025). The writ specifically sought the release of vehicles and declaration that the seizure was arbitrary and contrary to law.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted Clause 19(a) of G.O.Ms.No.100, Industries and Commerce (Mines-II) Department, dated 26.06.2025, which specifies graded penalties for vehicles involved in illegal or unauthorized excavation or transport of sand, including payment schedules for different classes of vehicles and repeat offences.
- The G.O.Ms.No.100 operates as a special measure superseding previous discretionary seizure regimes found in the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, requiring that penalties be levied, not that vehicles be indefinitely seized.
- The procedure for release after penalty payment and proof of ownership is now mandatory.
- Constitutional provisions alluded to: Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 — basis for procedural safeguards and natural justice.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court disposed the writ petition summarily at the admission stage by consent, expressly following a prior coordinate bench order (W.P.No.20122/2025) and directing authorities to strictly adhere to the penalty-release mechanism per the new G.O.
- The judgment consolidates a new approach for similarly situated litigants to secure vehicle release across the State without prolonged litigation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment applies and follows the existing precedent set in W.P.No.20122 of 2025.