IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14531 of 2009 Between: Neelam Penchal Reddy, S/o. Thimma Reddy, R/o. H.No. 18-149, Yenamalakuduru Village, Penamalur Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 The Station House Officer, Penmalur P.S., Penamalur Mandal, Krishna District. 4 The Yenamalakuduru Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Sarpanch, Yenamalakuduru Village, Penamalur Mandal, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.S.P.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in seizing Tractor and Trailer bearing registration Nos.AIC 612 and AIC 613 respectively, without registering any case, as illegal and arbitrary. On 24.07.2009, this Court, while directing release of the tractor and trailer forthwith, directed respondent No.3 to be personally present in the Court. In pursuance of this direction, Sri Vijaya Rao, Station House Officer of Penamalur Police Station, Penamalur Mandal, Krishna District, is present and he submitted that in pursuance of the interim direction given above, he released the tractor and trailer. He apologized for detaining the tractor and trailer without registering the case by stating that in view of the instructions contained in G.O.Ms.No.84, dated 10.04.2007, under which the police are directed to check illegal mining, he had bona fide detained the tractor. A perusal of the said G.O does not empower the police to detain any vehicle, transporting mineral illegally extracted, without registering a case. Even though the police are charged with the duty to take action against the persons, who commit offences, they are not empowered to exercise their power arbitrarily by detaining the properties of the citizens without registering cases. For the present, the explanation and the apologies tendered by respondent No.3 are accepted and the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous, with a caution to respondent No.3 to follow the procedure prescribed by law, while dealing with the citizens and their properties in future. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 31st July, 2009 vrn