Court issues liberty to petitioner to apply for release of seized vehicles and directs second respondent to decide application. Writ petition disposed. No order as to costs.
Liberty granted to file application for release of vehicles before second respondent. Second respondent directed to pass appropriate orders thereon.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
Writ Petition No.21161 of 2020
Order :
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the seizure of vehicles bearing registration No.AP 27 V 0878 (SK 210 HD KOBELCO HD) and two lorries bearing registration Nos.AP 39 V 2499 and AP 31 TN 5349 belonging to the first petitioner and JCB vehicle bearing registration No.AP 35 AF 3126 (JCB 3DX 2WD BACKHOE LOADER) belonging to the second petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.
The case of the petitioners is that the respondents have seized the subject vehicles on 18.09.2020 and when the petitioners approached the second respondent seeking release of the same, they refused the same on the alleged ground of illegal excavation of gravel in Survey Nos.395/3, 4 and 5 of B.P. Varakattu village in Cheepurupalli Mandal, which belonged to D-Form pattadars i.e., respondents 4 to 6; petitioners brought to the notice of the second respondent that they have hired the vehicles to respondents 4 to 6 and that they did not have any knowledge of illegal excavation of gravel; the second respondent issued show cause notice to the respondents 4 to 6 on 26.09.2020 and they also submitted their explanation on 03.10.2020; not satisfied with the said explanation, demand notice was issued in October 2020 directing the respondents 4 to 6 to pay penalty of Rs.4,60,21,745/-; as the petitioners are not at all concerned with the illegal excavation of gravel, they seek release of the subject vehicles.
When the matter came up for hearing, learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the respondents 4 to 6 are ryots and
2
that the petitioners are in fact conducting illegal excavation of gravel in their lands.
However, as the petitioners are seeking release of their vehicles, without going into the merits of the case, liberty is given to the petitioners to file appropriate application before the second respondent seeking release of the subject vehicles and if such an application is made, the second respondent is directed to deal with the same and pass appropriate orders thereon strictly in accordance with law.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
_____________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J.
Date:17.12.2020 Nsr
3
THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
Writ Petition No.21161 of 2020
Date:17.12.2020
Nsr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition questioning the seizure of vehicles seeking release due to alleged unrelated illegal excavation by landowners should be allowed. Whether the petitioners, who hired the vehicles
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petition No.21161 of 2020
Second Respondent
Respondents 4 to 6
KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
