Vehicle Retention Post-Seizure Without Statutory Basis Illegal: Andhra Pradesh HC

In a stern reaffirmation of property rights against arbitrary administrative action, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that authority to seize vehicles under mining regulations does not grant officers carte blanche to retain them indefinitely without releasing them upon penalty collection.

A single-judge bench of Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda ordered the release of a seized tipper lorry, holding that the statutory framework does not contemplate perpetual retention of seized transport vehicles.

Court's Rationale and Directions

Analyzing Sub-Rule (3)(iii) of Rule 26 of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, the Court relied on established precedents emphasizing that regulatory provisions governing vehicle interception are meant to ensure fee compliance rather than inflict procedural detention.

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."

Highlighting the guidance laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gurajat, the Court noted that merely keeping vehicles in police custody serves no fruitful purpose. The Court has 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 16 TJ 4867."

Background

The dispute arose when the Station House Officer, Tadepalli Police Station, seized a tipper lorry belonging to the petitioner. Challenging the seizure, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contending that the vehicle was seized without authority of law and in violation of Sub-Rule (3)(iii) of Rule 26 of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development Regulation) Act, 1957.

The petitioner argued that the action infringed upon rights guaranteed under Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, alongside filing an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for interim relief. Relying on the Division Bench judgment in Naganath Vs. State of A.P., the petitioner argued that the rules do not prohibit the release of the vehicle upon satisfaction of statutory requirements. The Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology conceded that the legal issue was squarely covered by earlier decisions. Consequent to these findings, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions for penalty assessment and vehicle release.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO: 23190 OF 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:33311
Case Title: POLINENI SRIRAM v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): VENKATA SIVA NAGARAJ BONKURI
For the Respondent(s): GP FOR HOME, GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 11389