JUDGMENT : SUREPALLI NANDA, J. 1. W.P. No. 18619 of 2023 Heard Mr. Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Mineral and Geology for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. B.G. Ramulu, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent. 2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th Respondent, in block listing the Petitioners Lorry Vehicle Nos. TS-08-UA-3219 belonging to the 1st Petitioner, AP-04-TW-4202 belonging to the 2nd Petitioner, AP-04-TW-4205 belonging to the 3rd Petitioner, TS-30-TA-1449, TS-30-TA-5139, TS-07-UK-9513 belonging to the 4th Petitioner, TS-07-UG-8397, TS-07-UK-3879 belonging to the 5th Petitioner, TS-07-UL-3788, TS-07-UL-4454, TS-07-UL-4445 belonging to the 6th Petitioner, TS-07-UK-5859, TS-07-UK-5958 belonging to the 7th Petitioner, TS-05-UD-2222, TS-07-UK-6839 belonging to the 8th Petitioner, TS-07-UK-5535 belonging to the 9th Petitioner, TS-30-T-5319, TS-30-T-4479 belonging to the 10th Petitioner and TS-30-TA-2259, TS-30-T-8055 belonging to the 11th Petitioner herein respectively pursuant to the crime in FIR No. 104/2023, dated 10.03.2023 registered by the 3rd Respondent herein against the Petitioners U/Sec. 379, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. 21 (1) of MMDARA Act, as illegal and arbitrary action without any jurisdiction and also violative of Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently issue a direction, directing the 4th Respondent hereinto delete/remove the Petitioners Lorry Vehicle Nos. TS-08-UA-3219 belonging to the 1st Petitioner, AP-04-TW-4202 belonging to the 2nd Petitioner, AP-04-TW-4205 belonging to the 3rdPetitioner, TS-30-TA-1449, TS-30-TA-5139 and TS-07-UK-9513 belonging to the 4th Petitioner, TS-07-UG-8397 & TS-07-UK-3879 belonging to the 5th Petitioner, TS-07-UL-3788, TS-07-UL-4454 & TS-07-UL-4445 belonging to the 6th Petitioner, TS-07-UK-5859 and TS-07-UK-5958 belonging to the 7th Petitioner, TS-05-UD-2222 and TS-07-UK-6839, belonging to the 8th Petitioner, TS-07-UK-5535 belonging to the 9th Petitioner, TS-30-T-5319 and TS-30-T-4479 belonging to the 10th Petitioner and TS-30-TA-2259 and TS-30-T-8055 belonging to the 11th Petitioner herein respectively from the block list forthwith, pursuant to the crime in FIR No. 104/2023, dated 10.03.2023 registered by the 3rd Respondent herein against the Petitioners U/Sec. 379, 420, 468,471 I.P.C. 21 (1) of MMDARA Act. 3. The case of the Petitioner in brief, is as follows: (a) The Petitioners are doing Transport Business by transporting the sand from the Sand Reach under proper way bills. 3. The case of the Petitioner in brief, is as follows: (a) The Petitioners are doing Transport Business by transporting the sand from the Sand Reach under proper way bills. On 10.03.2023 at 18:00 hours the ASI of Matwada Police Station lodged a complaint with P.S. Matwada, stating that while on patrolling duty, they received information that some Lorry Owners are transporting sand and they found one Lorry Bearing No. TS-24-T-4488 coming with sand from Arepalli side. (b) Upon receiving information, the police officers along with PCs-14.....3006 tried to intercept the lorry. On seeing them, the driver did not stop and rashly escaped and poured sand at some unknown place and parked the lorry in Thummalakunta area and fled away. (c) While searching, the police officers found an empty lorry on the road without sand load. There are so many sand Lorries and when enquired about lorry No. TS-24-T-4488 they came to know that the owner of lorry is Muthyala Ramanna and driver is Manchilla Venkateshwarlu. (d) Subsequently, secured the presence of two mediators Kandakatla Siddu S/o Lakshminarsaiah, Md. Khamroddin, checked the Lorry No. TS-24-T-4488 and a weigh bill pertaining to sand was found in it. In presence of mediators during the check, it was noted that the owner and driver of that lorry created fake weigh bill and transported sand illegally and caused loss to the Government in deceitful manner. Therefore, request was made to take necessary action against that lorry driver Muthyala Venkanna and lorry owner Manchilla Venkateshwarlu as per law. (e) Thereafter, on the basis of the complaint a crime was registered vide Crime No. 104/2023, U/Sec. 379, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. 21 (1) of MMDARA Act, FIR was issued to the court and case was taken for further investigation. During the course of investigation, the police seized the vehicles of the Petitioners. (f) As a result, petitioners filed applications to the S.H.O. Matwada, requesting him to release the seized vehicles and thus vehicles are released, taking into consideration the applications filed. (g) However, the 4th Respondent, without following the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No. 15, dated 19.02.2015, without any reasonable ground and without issuing any show cause notice as per the Mines and Minerals Act, merely on the basis of the crime registered against the Petitioners, block listed the vehicles of all the petitioners. (g) However, the 4th Respondent, without following the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No. 15, dated 19.02.2015, without any reasonable ground and without issuing any show cause notice as per the Mines and Minerals Act, merely on the basis of the crime registered against the Petitioners, block listed the vehicles of all the petitioners. The said action of the 4th Respondent is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. Hence, this Writ Petition. 4. The pleas put forth by the 4th respondent as per the written instructions filed by the 4th respondent-Vice Chairman and Managing Director of Telangana State Mineral Development Corporation Limited dated 20.07.2023 vide reference TSMDC/Legal/WP No. 18619/2023, in particular, Paras 9 to 13 read as under: “9. Station house officer, Matwada, Police station who is the seizing authority as per the TSSMR-2015 vide letter No. C No. 104/Cr/INPT-MAT/2023, dated 07.04.2023 sent letter to TSMDC regarding blockage of vehicles for creating fake way bills and transporting sand illegally and causing loss to the Government in deceitful manner. SHO, registered a case in Cr. No. 104/2023, U/Sec 379, 420, 468, 471 IPC Sec 21 (1) Mines and Mineral Act and issued FIR to the court and case is under investigation. 10. Accordingly, as per the request of Station House officer, Matwada the TSMDC had blocked 55 vehicles in order to prevent them from committing further offences. 11. Further it is submitted that as per G.O.Ms. No. 3, dated 08.01.2015 it is clearly stated that “any sand lorry found without valid way bill issued by TSMDC or by the pattadar will be deemed illegal and the vehicle shall be seized. 1. Any machinery and vehicle shall be seized used for extraction and transportation of sand in contravention of these rules shall be seized. 2. The following officer in the state are authorized under these rule to seize a machinery or vehicle involved in illegal sand extraction and transportation: (a) Sub-collector/revenue divisional officer (b) Tahsildar (Concerned) Mandal (c) Sub-Divisional Police Officer (Concern) (d) Station House Officer (Concern) (e) District/Divisional Panchayath Officer (f) Assistant Director of Mines and Geology (Concern) (g) Any other officer nominated by the District Collector (Concern). 12. Police have already identified the persons who are generating fake waybills and arrested them. As per the recommendation of the police, we have blocklisted the vehicles which involved in illegal sand transport. 13. 12. Police have already identified the persons who are generating fake waybills and arrested them. As per the recommendation of the police, we have blocklisted the vehicles which involved in illegal sand transport. 13. Further submitted that based on the Security reasons and ground that the crime registered against the petitioners and past history in the online, listed block petitioners vehicles for 6 months without any show cause notices, so as to not repeat the same things in future for illegal sand transportation and creating fake way bills etc. After completion of the 6 months the petitioners vehicles will be removed from block list without any application.” 5. Government of Andhra Pradesh, G.O MS. No. 71 dated 04.09.2019, in particular, the relevant paras are extracted herein: 15. Ban on sand transportation across the border: Transportation of sand beyond the borders of the state is prohibited: 16. Offences and Penalties: (f) Officers authorised to levy, collect penalties and seizure of vehicles from the person involved in illegal mining/stocking/hoarding/selling/black marketing in the State authorised under these rules are as follows: (i) District Collector (Concerned) (ii) Joint Collector (Concerned) (iii) Superintendent of Police (Concerned) (iv) Additional Superintendent of Police/OSD (Concerned) (v) Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer (Concerned) (vi) Tahsildar (Concerned) Mandal (vii) Sub-Divisional Police Officer (Concerned) (viii) Station House Officer (Concerned) (ix) District/Divisional Panchayat Officer (x) Deputy Director of Mines and Geology (Concerned) (xi) Asst. Director of Mines and Geology (Concerned) (xii) Any other officer nominated by Dist. Collector (Concerned) 6. The relevant Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read as under: “451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases - When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Explanation - For the purposes of this section “property” includes: (a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody. Explanation - For the purposes of this section “property” includes: (a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody. (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence. 457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property: (1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. (2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation.” 5. Section 451 clearly empowers the Court to pass appropriate orders with regard to such property, such as: (1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. (2) to order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of, after recording such evidence as it think necessary. (3) if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, to dispose of the same.” 7. The Apex Court in the Judgment dated 01.10.2012 reported in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 with C.M. Mudaliar vs. State of Gujarat, observed in Paras 7, 15, 17 and 18 read as under: 7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely: 1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation. 2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody. 3. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely: 1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation. 2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody. 3. If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the properly in detail. 4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles. Vehicles 15. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, a number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to their owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time. 17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. 18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then the insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If the insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then the insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If the insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: DISCUSSION: 8. It is the specific plea of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that the 3rd respondent - Station House Officer, Matwada Police Station who is the seizing authority as per the TSSMR 2015 vide letter No. C. No. 104/Cr/INPT-MAT/2023, dated 07.04.2023 had forwarded letter to T.S.M.D.C. regarding blockage of vehicles due to creation of fake way bills and transportation of sand illegally and causing loss to the Government in deceitful manner. The Station House Officer, registered a case in crime No. 104 of 2023 under Sections 379, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals Act and issued FIR to the Court and that the case is under investigation and as per the request of the Station House Officer, Matwada, the TSMDC had blocked 55 vehicles in order to prevent them from committing further offence. 9. It is further specifically contended that based on security reason’s and duly considering the fact that crime had been registered against the petitioners it was decided to block the petitioners vehicles for six months so as to ensure that the same things are not repeated in future for illegal transportation of sand by creating fake way bills and that after completion of six months, the petitioners vehicles will be removed from blocklist without any application being filed by the concerned seeking release of the said vehicles. 10. This Court opines that the 4th respondent herein has no power or authority to blocklist the petitioners’ vehicles. 10. This Court opines that the 4th respondent herein has no power or authority to blocklist the petitioners’ vehicles. The specific contention of the counsel for the 4th respondent that the petitioners’ vehicles will be removed from blocklist without any application being filed by the petitioners requesting the 4th respondent to remove the petitioners’ subject vehicles from blocklist after completion of six months in view of the crime registered against the petitioners so that the petitioners would not repeat the same in future and indulge any illegal transportation of sand by creating fake way bills is not tenable since the said plea cannot be the ground to blocklist the petitioners subject vehicles without any power or authority vested under law. Neither the counsel for the 3rd respondent places before this Court any rule position authorizing the 3rd respondent authority in blocklisting the petitioners subject Lorry Vehicle Nos. TS-08-UA-3219 belonging to the 1st petitioner herein, AP-04-TW-4202 belonging to the 2nd petitioner herein, AP-04-TW-4205 belonging to the 3rd petitioner herein, TS-30-TA-1449, TS-30-TA-5139 and TS-07-UK-9513 belonging to the 4th Petitioner herein, TS-07-UG-8397 and TS-07-UK-3879 belonging to the 5th petitioner herein, TS-07-UL-3788, TS-07-UL-4454 and TS-07-UL-4445 belonging to the 6th petitioner herein, TS-07-UK-5859 and TS-07-UK-5958 belonging to the 7th petitioner herein, TS-05-UD-2222 and TS-07-UK-6839 belonging to the 8th petitioner herein, TS-07-UK-5535 belonging to the 9th petitioner herein, TS-30-T-5319 and TS-30-T-4479 belonging to the 10th petitioner herein and TS-30-TA-2259 and TS-30-T-8055 belonging to the 11th Petitioner herein respectively, nor disputes the fact that the petitioners had not been put on prior notice prior to blocklisting the petitioners vehicles pursuant to the crime in connection with FIR No. 104 of 2023 dated 10.03.2023 registered by the 3rd respondent herein against the petitioners under Sections 379, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957. CONCLUSION 11. Taking into consideration the fact that the action of the 4th respondent authority in blocklisting the petitioners subject vehicles admittedly even according to the 4th respondent authority has been without issuing notice to the petitioners and in clear violation of principles of natural justice, this Court opines that the same is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Orissa vs. Binapani Devi, AIR 1967 SC 1269 on the point that any order which has civil consequences must be passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the party. It is very settled that any authority must act fairly and should give the person proceeded against the reasonable opportunity from making his objection against the proposed action to be initiated against the said person. This Court opines that the action of the 4th respondent is not only in clear violation of principles of natural justice of issuing prior notice to the petitioners prior to blocklisting the petitioners subject vehicles and providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner prior to the unilateral blocklisting of the vehicles is totally without any jurisdiction and in fact unwarranted and uncalled for. Even in the written instructions filed by the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent failed to justify the said action of block listing the petitioner’s vehicle by the 3rd and 4th respondents herein by tracing their said power to do so by referring to the relevant legal provision permitting them to do so. It is the bounden duty cast upon the respondents 2 and 4 to act judicially and to keep the petitioners herein informed of the case of the State and the evidence in support thereof and to provide a reasonably fair opportunity to the petitioners of meeting their case before a decision adverse to the petitioners is taken. 12. A bare perusal of the parapgrahs of the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2002 (10) SCC 283 (referred to and extracted above) clearly indicates that the Apex Court opined that it is of no use to keep seized vehicles at police stations for a long period since the vehicles become junk day by day and the owner of the vehicles should not suffer because of its remaining unused. 13. 13. Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances and the observations in the judgment dated 01.10.2002 of the Apex Court reported in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 in particular at Para 7, 15, 17 and 18 (referred to and extracted above) on the point that the owner of the vehicle should not suffer because of its remaining unused and further that if the vehicles are kept unattended the vehicles become junk day by day and also the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Orissa vs. Binapani Devi, AIR 1967 SC 1269 on the point that any order which has civil consequences must be passed after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the party concerned the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for and the 4th respondent is forthwith directed to delete the vehicles of the petitioners bearing numbers TS-08-UA-3219 belonging to the 1st petitioner herein, AP-04-TW-4202 belonging to the 2nd petitioner herein, AP-04-TW-4205 belonging to the 3rd petitioner herein, TS-30-TA-1449, TS-30-TA-5139 and TS-07-UK-9513 belonging to the 4th Petitioner herein, TS-07-UG-8397 and TS-07-UK-3879 belonging to the 5th petitioner herein, TS-07-UL-3788, TS-07-UL-4454 and TS-07-UL-4445 belonging to the 6th petitioner herein, TS-07-UK-5859 and TS-07-UK-5958 belonging to the 7th petitioner herein, TS-05-UD-2222 and TS-07-UK-6839 belonging to the 8th petitioner herein, TS-07-UK-5535 belonging to the 9th petitioner herein, TS-30-T-5319 and TS-30-T-4479 belonging to the 10th petitioner herein and TS-30-TA-2259 and TS-30-T-8055 belonging to the 11th Petitioner herein respectively, from the blocklist in pursuant to the Crime No. 104 of 2023 dated 10.03.2023 registered by the 3rd respondent herein against the petitioners under Sections 379, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 and permit the petitioners to forthwith operate the said vehicles. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 14. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.