MINES & MINERALS = SIZER & CONFISCATION =In view of the amended Rule 9-Q (1) (i) and (ii), read with Rule 9-Q (6), the petitioners are permitted to submit applications to the officer, who seized the vehicles; the said officer shall, within three days from the date of receipt of the applications; examine whether the vehicles were used in committing the offence for the first and the second time; and, if so, consider directing release of the vehicles on payment of the prescribed penalty. If, on the other hand, the vehicles are found to have been used in the commission of the offence, for three or more times, the officer concerned shall consider directing release of the vehicles, in accordance with Rule 9-Q (6), on a bond being executed by the owners of the vehicles for their production as and when directed by the Court.=
seizing the petitioners’ vehicles without following any
procedure, as illegal and arbitrary.=
The amended Rules, notified in G.O.Ms.No.186 dated 17.12.2013,
prescribe a penalty for the first and second offences and, thereafter, for the
confiscation of the vehicle after following the procedure stipulated therein.
Even in cases where a vehicle is sought to be confiscated, the officer who
seizes the vehicle is empowered to direct its release under Rule 9-Q (6) on
execution of a bond by the owner thereof for production of the vehicle so
released as and when directed by the Competent Court. Proceedings for
confiscation can be instituted in cases where the offences which have been
committed are for the third or more times.
In view of the amended Rule 9-Q (1) (i) and (ii), read with Rule 9-Q (6),
the petitioners are permitted to submit applications to the officer, who seized
the vehicles; the said officer shall, within three days from the date of receipt of
the applications; examine whether the vehicles were used in committing the
offence for the first and the second time; and, if so, consider directing release
of the vehicles on payment of the prescribed penalty. If, on the other hand,
the vehicles are found to have been used in the commission of the offence,
for three or more times, the officer concerned shall consider directing release
of the vehicles, in accordance with Rule 9-Q (6), on a bond being executed
by the owners of the vehicles for their production as and when directed by the
Court.
http://csis.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo =WP&mno=2364&year=2014
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION No.2364 of 2014
ORDER:
The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of the
respondents, in seizing the petitioners’ vehicles without following any
procedure, as illegal and arbitrary.
Learned Government Pleader for Mines & Industries would draw
attention of this Court to the new Rules which have been made and notified
in G.O.Ms.No.186 dated 17.12.2013 modifying the earlier Rules regulating
quarrying and transportation of sand.
Rule 9-Q (1) prescribes a penalty for the first and second offences.
Under rule 9-Q (1) (ii) if the vehicle is found to be involved in an offence more
than two times, it shall, along with sand, be liable for confiscation. Rule 9-Q
(2) provides for seizure of the vehicle. 9-Q (3) stipulates that the authorized
officer, who has seized the vehicle, shall order confiscation of the vehicle so
seized. Rule 9-Q (4) stipulates that no order of confiscation of any vehicle
shall be made, under sub-rule (3), unless the person from whom the vehicle
is seized is given: (i) a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which
it is proposed to confiscate such property; (ii) an opportunity of making a
representation in writing within such time as may be specified in the notice
against the grounds for confiscation; and (iii) a reasonable opportunity of
being heard in the matter. Rule 9-Q (5) prohibits confiscation, under sub-rule
(3), being made of any vehicle if the owner of the vehicle proves, to the
satisfaction of the authorized officer, that it was used in carrying on
operations without his knowledge or connivance or the knowledge or
connivance of his agent, if any, or the person in charge of the vehicle in
committing the offence; and each of them had taken all reasonable and
necessary precautions against such use. Under the proviso to Rule 9-Q (5),
no order prejudicial to any person shall be passed without being afforded an
opportunity of being heard. Rule 9-Q (6) stipulates that any officer who has
seized any vehicle under Sub-rule (1)(ii), and where he makes a report of
such seizure to the Competent Court under sub-rule (2), may release thesame on the execution of a bond by the owner thereof for the production of
the vehicle so released as and when directed by the competent Court. Under
Rule 9-Q (8), upon receipt of any report under sub-rule (2), the Magistrate
shall take such measures as may be necessary for the trial of the accused
and the disposal of the vehicle according to law.
The amended Rules, notified in G.O.Ms.No.186 dated 17.12.2013,
prescribe a penalty for the first and second offences and, thereafter, for the
confiscation of the vehicle after following the procedure stipulated therein.
Even in cases where a vehicle is sought to be confiscated, the officer who
seizes the vehicle is empowered to direct its release under Rule 9-Q (6) on
execution of a bond by the owner thereof for production of the vehicle so
released as and when directed by the Competent Court. Proceedings for
confiscation can be instituted in cases where the offences which have been
committed are for the third or more times.
In view of the amended Rule 9-Q (1) (i) and (ii), read with Rule 9-Q (6),
the petitioners are permitted to submit applications to the officer, who seized
the vehicles; the said officer shall, within three days from the date of receipt of
the applications; examine whether the vehicles were used in committing the
offence for the first and the second time; and, if so, consider directing release
of the vehicles on payment of the prescribed penalty. If, on the other hand,
the vehicles are found to have been used in the commission of the offence,
for three or more times, the officer concerned shall consider directing release
of the vehicles, in accordance with Rule 9-Q (6), on a bond being executed
by the owners of the vehicles for their production as and when directed by the
Court.
The entire exercise, culminating in an order being passed, shall be
completed within three days from the date of submission of the
representations by the petitioners; and necessary action shall be taken for
release of the vehicles, in cases falling within the ambit of Rule 9-Q(1)(i), on
payment of the prescribed penalty; and, in other cases, on a bond being
executed in terms of Rule 9-Q (6) of the Rules.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. The miscellaneouspetitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs.
_______________________________
(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)
30.01.2014
Note: Issue C.C in two days.
B/o.
vs
seizing the petitioners’ vehicles without following any
procedure, as illegal and arbitrary.=
The amended Rules, notified in G.O.Ms.No.186 dated 17.12.2013,
prescribe a penalty for the first and second offences and, thereafter, for the
confiscation of the vehicle after following the procedure stipulated therein.
Even in cases where a vehicle is sought to be confiscated, the officer who
seizes the vehicle is empowered to direct its release under Rule 9-Q (6) on
execution of a bond by the owner thereof for production of the vehicle so
released as and when directed by the Competent Court. Proceedings for
confiscation can be instituted in cases where the offences which have been
committed are for the third or more times.
In view of the amended Rule 9-Q (1) (i) and (ii), read with Rule 9-Q (6),
the petitioners are permitted to submit applications to the officer, who seized
the vehicles; the said officer shall, within three days from the date of receipt of
the applications; examine whether the vehicles were used in committing the
offence for the first and the second time; and, if so, consider directing release
of the vehicles on payment of the prescribed penalty. If, on the other hand,
the vehicles are found to have been used in the commission of the offence,
for three or more times, the officer concerned shall consider directing release
of the vehicles, in accordance with Rule 9-Q (6), on a bond being executed
by the owners of the vehicles for their production as and when directed by the
Court.
http://csis.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo =WP&mno=2364&year=2014
| WP 2364 / 2014 | WP 2364 / 2014 | CASE IS:DISPOSED |
|
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION No.2364 of 2014
ORDER:
The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of the
respondents, in seizing the petitioners’ vehicles without following any
procedure, as illegal and arbitrary.
Learned Government Pleader for Mines & Industries would draw
attention of this Court to the new Rules which have been made and notified
in G.O.Ms.No.186 dated 17.12.2013 modifying the earlier Rules regulating
quarrying and transportation of sand.
Rule 9-Q (1) prescribes a penalty for the first and second offences.
Under rule 9-Q (1) (ii) if the vehicle is found to be involved in an offence more
than two times, it shall, along with sand, be liable for confiscation. Rule 9-Q
(2) provides for seizure of the vehicle. 9-Q (3) stipulates that the authorized
officer, who has seized the vehicle, shall order confiscation of the vehicle so
seized. Rule 9-Q (4) stipulates that no order of confiscation of any vehicle
shall be made, under sub-rule (3), unless the person from whom the vehicle
is seized is given: (i) a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which
it is proposed to confiscate such property; (ii) an opportunity of making a
representation in writing within such time as may be specified in the notice
against the grounds for confiscation; and (iii) a reasonable opportunity of
being heard in the matter. Rule 9-Q (5) prohibits confiscation, under sub-rule
(3), being made of any vehicle if the owner of the vehicle proves, to the
satisfaction of the authorized officer, that it was used in carrying on
operations without his knowledge or connivance or the knowledge or
connivance of his agent, if any, or the person in charge of the vehicle in
committing the offence; and each of them had taken all reasonable and
necessary precautions against such use. Under the proviso to Rule 9-Q (5),
no order prejudicial to any person shall be passed without being afforded an
opportunity of being heard. Rule 9-Q (6) stipulates that any officer who has
seized any vehicle under Sub-rule (1)(ii), and where he makes a report of
such seizure to the Competent Court under sub-rule (2), may release thesame on the execution of a bond by the owner thereof for the production of
the vehicle so released as and when directed by the competent Court. Under
Rule 9-Q (8), upon receipt of any report under sub-rule (2), the Magistrate
shall take such measures as may be necessary for the trial of the accused
and the disposal of the vehicle according to law.
The amended Rules, notified in G.O.Ms.No.186 dated 17.12.2013,
prescribe a penalty for the first and second offences and, thereafter, for the
confiscation of the vehicle after following the procedure stipulated therein.
Even in cases where a vehicle is sought to be confiscated, the officer who
seizes the vehicle is empowered to direct its release under Rule 9-Q (6) on
execution of a bond by the owner thereof for production of the vehicle so
released as and when directed by the Competent Court. Proceedings for
confiscation can be instituted in cases where the offences which have been
committed are for the third or more times.
In view of the amended Rule 9-Q (1) (i) and (ii), read with Rule 9-Q (6),
the petitioners are permitted to submit applications to the officer, who seized
the vehicles; the said officer shall, within three days from the date of receipt of
the applications; examine whether the vehicles were used in committing the
offence for the first and the second time; and, if so, consider directing release
of the vehicles on payment of the prescribed penalty. If, on the other hand,
the vehicles are found to have been used in the commission of the offence,
for three or more times, the officer concerned shall consider directing release
of the vehicles, in accordance with Rule 9-Q (6), on a bond being executed
by the owners of the vehicles for their production as and when directed by the
Court.
The entire exercise, culminating in an order being passed, shall be
completed within three days from the date of submission of the
representations by the petitioners; and necessary action shall be taken for
release of the vehicles, in cases falling within the ambit of Rule 9-Q(1)(i), on
payment of the prescribed penalty; and, in other cases, on a bond being
executed in terms of Rule 9-Q (6) of the Rules.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. The miscellaneouspetitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs.
_______________________________
(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)
30.01.2014
Note: Issue C.C in two days.
B/o.
vs
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.