Vehicle Release Cannot Be Denied Solely For Non-Payment of Penalty: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reinforced the principle that statutory authorities cannot indefinitely detain seized vehicles under minor mineral concession rules solely on the ground of non-payment of penalties. The ruling underscores that while the state possesses the power to intercept and penalize, it lacks the mandate to withhold property as a leverage tool when no specific provision for such withholding exists.

Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, presiding over the matter, addressed the seizure of a Tipper Lorry by police and revenue officials. The Court navigated the intersection of regulatory oversight and property rights, holding that the mechanical detention of vehicles serves no fruitful purpose and must be substituted with structured statutory compliance.

Interpretation of Rule 26 of AP Minor Mineral Concession Rules

The Court focused on the procedural requirements under the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. It was observed that while the law permits the imposition of penalties specifically five times the normal seigniorage fee it does not explicitly authorize the permanent or prolonged custody of the vehicle until such dues are cleared. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "On a reading of the above Rule, there is nothing to indicate, the vehicle cannot be released, unless the penalty and 5 seigniorage fee is paid. All that the rule states is that the penalty equal to market value of the mineral seized along with seigniorage fee prevalent at that time can be ordered to be paid at the time of interception of the vehicle, if driver or person-incharge of the vehicle fails to produce a valid permit. But, nowhere the Rule postulates that the vehicle cannot be released, unless the same is paid."

Reliance on Judicial Precedents

The Bench relied on the Division Bench judgment in Naganath Vs. State of A.P., which clarified that the lack of a valid transit permit triggers financial penalties but not an absolute bar on vehicle release. Furthermore, the Court cited the Supreme Court decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gurajat to reiterate that keeping vehicles in police custody indefinitely serves no legal utility and often leads to the deterioration of the asset.

Court Directions

The Court has the following directions:

"i) The 2nd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in terms of Sub-Rule (3)(iii) of Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and collect the due seigniorage fee and penalty as per law;

ii) After levy of penalty and on payment of such penalty, the petitioner shall produce the receipt of such payment and ownership documents of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the 3rd respondent.

iii) In such an event, the 3rd respondent is hereby directed to release the seized vehicle of the petitioner i.e., Tipper Lorry bearing No.AP 39 WR 7679."

Background:

The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the seizure of their vehicle (Tipper Lorry No. AP 39 WR 7679) in connection with Crime No. 197/2026. The seizure was conducted by the Tulluru Police Station on allegations of violating the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The petitioner argued that the seizure was arbitrary and violative of Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The State, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, conceded that the legal issue regarding the interpretation of Rule 26 had already been settled by previous Court orders. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition with specific directions for the release of the vehicle upon the fulfillment of statutory penalty requirements.

Key Takeaways:

Property Rights vs. Regulatory Fines

Adhering to the principle that administrative bodies cannot exceed the authority granted by statutes, the Court ensured that vehicle detention is not used as an extra-legal coercive measure.

Settled Law on Vehicle Custody

Reaffirms the Supreme Court's stance that seized vehicles should be released to avoid national waste and property decay, provided ownership and security are established.

Mandatory Procedural Compliance

Authorities are mandated to follow the specific penalty calculation mechanism under Rule 26(3)(iii) rather than adopting ad-hoc seizure practices.

Ratio Decidendi:

Rule 26(3)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, authorizes the imposition and collection of seignior age fees and penalties for the lack of valid transit permits, but it does not contain a provision that bars the release of the intercepted vehicle pending or in lieu of such payment. Detention of a vehicle serves no fruitful purpose where the statutory objective can be met through the assessment and levy of the prescribed financial penalty.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO: 17477/2026
NeutralCitation: 2026:APHC:25299
Case Title: KORABANDI KARIMULLA vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Anand Kumar Kochiri
For the Respondent(s): GP For Home, GP For Revenue, GP For Mines And Geology

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 219