THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 9424 OF 2011 Date: 21.04.2011 Between: Smt. C.Vanaja ..... PETITIONER AND The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:- THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.9424 OF 2011 O R D E R : The petitioner is the owner of Heavy Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.AP.02/W.8269 covered by permit PPC No.AP002/2248/PPC/2007 valid up to 28.11.2012. On 31.03.2011 while the said vehicle, loaded with granite stone, was proceeding from Ananthapur the second respondent herein stopped the vehicle and seized the same alleging that the documents regarding the load of granite stone were not produced and detained the vehicle at the premises of Mudigubba Police Station. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in seizing and detaining the petitioner’s Goods Vehicle, is arbitrary and illegal. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that after filing this writ petition, the 3rd respondent-the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology issued a notice dated 13.04.2011 informing the petitioner that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mudigubba by letter dated 07.04.2011 had brought to their notice about the seizure of the vehicle loaded with granite block and pursuant to the same, on 07.04.2011 the Technical Assistant had taken the measurement of granite block being carried in the vehicle and that his report revealed that the vehicle was carrying 4.712 cbm granite block. Alleging that the said granite was being transported without payment of seigniorage fees in advance in violation of Rule 10(3) (b) and Rule 34 (1) of A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and therefore, the petitioner was liable to pay the penalty of Rs.45,355/- together with normal seigniorage fee of Rs.9,071/- as per Rule 26 of the said Rules, the petitioner was called upon to explain as to why action should not be initiated against the petitioner for collection of the evaded seigniorage fee along with five times penalty. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner represented that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the normal seigniorage fees subject to the final order that may be passed by the 3rd respondent and therefore, detention of the vehicle by the 2nd respondent in the Police Station is not warranted. Having regard to the facts and circumstances notice above, particularly keeping in view that the 3rd respondent has already initiated proceedings under the provisions of the A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and no other proceedings have been initiated so far by the 1st respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to release the vehicle in question subject to payment of the normal seigniorage fee of Rs.9,071/- as demanded in the show cause notice dated 13.04.2011 issued by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner shall make the said payment to the 3rd respondent and on production of receipt of such payment, the vehicle in question should be released by the 2nd respondent. It is open to the 3rd respondent to proceed with the enquiry as proposed in the notice dated 13.04.2011 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is made clear that the 1st respondent may also proceed to take necessary action if any under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Rules made thereunder. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ​ ____________ Date: 21.04.2011 G. ROHINI, J