The Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, provide for levy of penalty at the rate of Rs.20,000/-, per heavy goods vehicle. On payment of penalty, the vehicle can be released. However, if the vehicle was involved in similar crimes on earlier occasion, the facility would not be available.


WP 4668 / 2013WPSR 24828 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
P.V. SESHUBABU, VISAKHAPATNAM  VSS.H.O., VSP DIST & 2 OT
PET.ADV. : NAVEEN KUMARRESP.ADV. : GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY
SUBJECT: MINES, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE (MISC.MATTERS)DISTRICT:  VISAKHAPATNAM

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.4668 of 2013

ORDER:
The petitioner claims to be the owner of Goods Vehicle bearing No. AP 31 X 7691.  It was seized by the 1st respondent on 12-02-2013, on the ground that it was used in transporting sand without valid permit.  Crime No.47 of 2013 was registered.  The petitioner challenges the same.
2.  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
3.  The only ground on which the vehicle was seized is that it was used in transporting sand without valid permit.   The Andhra PradeshMinor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, provide for levy of penalty at the rate of Rs.20,000/-, per heavy goods vehicle.  On payment of penalty, the vehicle can be released.  However, if the vehicle was involved in similar crimes on earlier occasion, the facility would not be available.
4.  Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent that, in case the vehicle in question was not involved in similar offences or acts on earlier occasion and was not levied any penalty, it shall be released on payment of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand).  In case, the vehicle was involved in similar offences or acts on earlier occasion, the respondents need not release the vehicle and it shall be open to them to take necessary steps in accordance with law.  For that purpose, the petitioner shall file an affidavit stating whether or not the vehicle was seized on earlier occasion, on the same allegations. 
5.  The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J   

February 15, 2013.

Note: Issue operative portion by

wire at party’s costs.

B/O.KTL 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.