The Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirms, following precedent, that immediate release of seized vehicles is not barred by non-payment of penalty and seigniorage fee, provided suitable bonds and undertakings are furnished. This judgment maintains the line of authority set by the Division Bench in Naganath v. State of Andhra Pradesh, and is binding on subordinate courts and authorities dealing with mineral-related vehicle seizures.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/30420/2025 of V KRISHNA Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CNR APHC010588622025 |
| Date of Registration | 03-11-2025 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| 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 on all subordinate courts and authorities in Andhra Pradesh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Division Bench decision in Naganath v. State of Andhra Pradesh |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law / Mining & Minerals Regulation |
| Questions of Law | Whether seizure and withholding of vehicles pending payment of penalty/seigniorage fee is permissible under law |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court, relying on the Division Bench decision in Naganath, held that there is no legal bar to release of the seized vehicle upon furnishing a personal bond and proof of ownership. Payment of penalty and seigniorage fee is not a condition precedent for interim custody. The authorities must follow due process as per applicable statutes before permanently depriving ownership of seized vehicles. Directions for interim custody were given accordingly. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Division Bench decision in Naganath v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2021 (2) ALD 535) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court adopted the reasoning from Naganath, which clarified the interpretation of relevant mining rules regarding release of seized vehicles. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners’ vehicles were seized while stationed on a vacant site; authorities did not follow proper statutory process; petitioners produced documents of ownership. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in Andhra Pradesh dealing with seizure and release of vehicles. |
| Persuasive For | High Courts in other States interpreting similar mining and mineral transport rules. |
| Follows | Division Bench in Naganath v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2021 (2) ALD 535). |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that penalty and seigniorage fee need not be paid as a precondition for interim release of seized vehicles.
- Interim custody can be granted on furnishing a personal bond and proof of ownership, plus an undertaking.
- The decision is directly based on Division Bench authority, ensuring consistency and clarity in approach.
- Lawyers should ensure production of ownership documents and be prepared to furnish personal bonds/undertakings when seeking release of seized vehicles.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the arguments and found that the action of withholding release of vehicles pending payment of fees was not justified.
- Relying on the Division Bench’s ruling in Naganath v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2021 (2) ALD 535), it was clarified that mining rules do not require payment of penalty and seigniorage fee as a precondition for release of the vehicle.
- The rule only requires payment at interception if the person in charge fails to produce a valid permit, but does not bar interim release upon execution of bond and proof of ownership.
- The court directed authorities to grant interim custody on these conditions, maintaining the established statutory interpretation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The authorities intercepted and seized the petitioners’ vehicles while they were engaged in work on hire.
- The vehicles were legally owned, and supporting documents were produced.
- Seizure was conducted without following due process under relevant statutes.
- There is no legal bar to release; prays for immediate return of vehicles.
Respondent
- Represented by Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology.
- No specific arguments by respondents are recorded in the order beyond noting their appearance.
Factual Background
Petitioners’ vehicles, a JCB and a tractor (compressor), were seized on 20.09.2025 by local authorities in Kanamanapalli village, Gudupalli Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. The vehicles were engaged for work on hire and were stationed on a vacant site at the time of seizure. Petitioners claim that they produced ownership documents and that seizure was effected without following statutory procedures.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment interpreted the relevant mining rules, specifically focusing on whether penalty and seigniorage fee must be paid before releasing a seized vehicle. The court, following Division Bench precedent, held that the rules require payment at the time of interception if permits are not produced but do not bar interim custody of the vehicle to the owner on suitable conditions.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines are set in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The court follows and applies the binding Division Bench precedent set in Naganath v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2021 (2) ALD 535).