THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.422 of 2008 ORDER: 1 Petitioner is the private limited company. In this Writ Petition the petitioner seeks a direction by way of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in detaining the vehicle of the petitioner i.e. lorry bearing No. AP 27 X 369 along with the consignment of Rough Granite Blocks of 12.631 Cbm and net 9.608 Cbm as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to release the said vehicle along with the consignment to the petitioner forthwith. 2 The Technical Officer attached to the office of the first respondent has intercepted and seized the lorry bearing No. AP 27 X 369 when the petitioner has used the same for transportation of Black Galaxy Granite block of the quantity of 13.200 Cbm on 28.12.2007 at 6.00 AM within the limits of Thandur village, Varadayapalem Mandal in Chittoor District. The said seizure was effected on the ground that the said transportation was not covered by valid permits for the black granite and thus, the transportation was in violation of Rule 26 (1) & (2) and 34 of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 framed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 3 On filing of the present Writ Petition, the vehicle in question along with the consignment was ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner on its furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs.1,50,000/-. 4 In this Writ Petition it is the case of the petitioner that the transportation was covered by transit permit dated 20.12.2007 and in that view of the matter the seizure itself is illegal. 5 When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent has produced a demand notice dated 03.11.2011 issued in proceedings No.38/Seizing of Vehicles/2007 wherein the petitioner was demanded to pay Rs.2,77,200/- i.e. normal seigniorage fee of Rs.46,200/- + 5 times penalty of Rs.2,31,000/-. The said demand notice is placed on record. It is stated in the said notice that the petitioner was given show cause notice alleging the illegal transportation of granite and the petitioner has also given a reply to the said notice on 14.02.2008. Alleging that the said reply was not satisfactory, and by recording a finding that the petitioner has undertaken the transportation without any valid permit, the demand notice was issued on 03.11.2011. 6 When the matter was listed on the last occasion, a representation was made on behalf of the respondents that they have not considered the transit form dated 20.12.2007 based on which the transportation was undertaken, and hence the matter was adjourned to today to enable the learned Government Pleader to verify whether the said transit form is related to the consignment which was being carried in the lorry in question on 28.12.2007. 7 An additional counter affidavit is filed wherein it is stated that the lorry number in the transit permit is written as AP 27 X 3869 instead of AP 27 X 369 and that there is no royalty paid stamp affixed by the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Ongole on the transit permit produced by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the quantity of the granite block shown in the transit permit is 12.631 Cbm, whereas, the then Royalty Inspector has reported that the petitioner was transporting two granite blocks measuring to 8.100 Cbm and 13.200 Cbm and there is no matching of granite blocks seized at the time of checking and the transport permits submitted by the petitioner. 8 In this case, it is to be noticed that the petitioner has subjected to the jurisdiction by filing his reply to the show cause notice where the respondents have demanded seigniorage fee and also penalty. On filing of the explanation, a separate demand notice was issued on 03.11.2011. Such demand notice is not the subject matter of the present Writ Petition. In view of the passing of final orders by issuing demand notice, while it is open to the petitioner to question the said notice if there is any illegality in issuing such demand notice, no finding can be recorded in this Writ Petition that the seizure itself is illegal. As much as the lorry of the petitioner was released on its furnishing bank guarantee, the respondents are entitled to encash the bank guarantee and take steps to realise the balance amount as per the demand notice dated 03.11.2011 by taking steps in accordance with law. It is also made clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the demand notice it is open for him to question the same and to obtain appropriate orders. 9 Subject to the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. --------------------------- R.Subhash Reddy, J. 24.11.2011 Kvsn