Sri Sai Surya Granites, Rep. By Its Authorized v. State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Secretary, Industries

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.16908 of 2017 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to declare the action of 3rd respondent in detaining the vehicle bearing No.AP 27TW 7643 along with finished Granite Slabs & Tiles of 4027 sft. which is finished product for delivery to M/s.SATI EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD., Plot No.121, APIIC Growth Centre, Gundlapalli, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District, and demanding seig. fee on the finished product for release of the same, as arbitrary and illegal. 2.

Heard and perused the material available on record. 3.

The brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition, are as follows:

The petitioner has established cutting and polishing unit by name Sri Sai Surya Granites. The petitioner purchased raw blocks from Ongole Galaxy, who holds valid quarry lease in Survey No.54/123, Main Road, Chimakurthy, and Pearl Minierals & Mines Pvt. Ltd., 39/1, Main Road, Chimakurthy, who have issued permit to the petitioner, which was issued by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, on payment of Advance Royalties for transportation of the raw blocks. It is further submitted that the petitioner, after processing the raw blocks, sold 4027 square feet of slabs and tiles to M/s. Sati Exprots India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.121, APIIC Growth Centre, Gundlapalli, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District, and the tiles and slabs were loaded into lorry bearing

No.AP 27TW 7643 on 01.05.2017. When the said vehicle was passing through to deliver the goods, the 3rd respondent intercepted the vehicle at Tangutur Toll gate and detained the vehicle along with material. It is further case of the petitioner that though the petitioner produced entire documents such as purchase details, royalty form, etc., but the 3rd respondent refused to release the vehicle along with material and demanded the petitioner to deposit seigniorage fee once again for release of vehicle along with material, which material already suffered seigniorage fee.

4.

The case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent has issued notice No.394/Vg/2017, dated 01.05.2017, which was received on 04.05.2017, directing the petitioner to pay seigniorage fee along with penalty and on receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted detailed explanation and pending consideration of such explanation, the petitioner requested to release the vehicle along with material, but the 3rd respondent refused to release the same. 5.

When the matter came up for hearing, it is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the request for return of the material is rejected by the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner may be given liberty to challenge the same before the competent authority. 6.

Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as far as the return of the material is concerned. As far as the return of vehicle involved in transporting the material is concerned, this Court is of the view that the same can be returned to the petitioner

herein since the petitioner availed the same on rental basis and further more, it is not directly concerned with the material involved in this matter. Hence, this Court intend to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction:

7.

The 3rd respondent is directed to release the vehicle bearing No.AP 27TW 7643 for interim custody of the petitioner, subject to final orders to be passed at the time of disposal of main case, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) with one surety for the like sum and also on production of original R.C. book. It is further directed that the petitioner shall not alienate, change the physical features of the vehicle till the disposal of the criminal case and further he shall undertake to produce the vehicle as and when required by the 3rd respondent. The said order will not stand in the way of the confiscation proceedings.

8.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ___________________ RAJA ELANGO,J Date: 5th June, 2017 KL

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.16908 of 2017 Date: 5th June, 2017 KL