Disposed

Katikam Venkatesh, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Dec 2020WP/24091/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a memo rejecting the petitioner's representation for interim release of seized vehicle related to unlawful liquor transportation. The High Court directed authorities to consider the representation afresh after noting the absence of consideration of a later submission.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's representation afresh and pass appropriate orders within two weeks.

Katikam Venkatesh, Vs The State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No. 24091 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in issuing the Memo dated 17.10.2020 rejecting the petitioner’s representation for interim release of Honda Unicorn Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 39 DT 3881 in connection with crime No.92 of 2020 registered by the 4^th respondent, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents.

¶5

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is eking out his livelihood by doing coolie works and for the said purpose, he purchased the above vehicle. On 16.08.2020, on credible information, the 4^th respondent along with his staff conducted raids and at Lingapuram Cross Roads found illegal transportation of 4 liters of ID liquor on Honda Uniocorn Motor cycle bearing temporary registration No.AP 07 XK TR 2399 with Engine No.KC31EA1199051. Then the 4^th respondent arrested the accused and seized the vehicle along with liquor and registered the above crime for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act. The 3^rd respondent issued show cause notice dated 26.08.2020 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why the seized property and vehicle should not be confiscated to the Government under Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 19.10.2020. The 3^rd respondent passed the impugned Memo dated 17.10.2020 rejecting the petitioner’s

¶6

¶7

representation on the ground that the two wheeler bearing registration No. 39 DT 3881 did not tally with the two wheeler bearing No.AP 07 XK TR 2399 which was seized by the 4^th respondent in connection with the crime No.92 of 2020. It is also stated that the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 18.11.2020 to the 3^rd respondent stating that he completed vehicle registration formalities on 05.02.2020 and due to Covid-19, the RTA officials did not issue the registration certificate, and as per the said certificate, his name and vehicle registration No. AP 39 DT 3881 and chasis number of the vehicle is one and same to that of the vehicle seized in connection with the above crime.

¶8

The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3^rd respondent without considering the representation dated 18.11.2020 submitted by the petitioner, passed the impugned Memo.

¶9

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his prayer seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s representation as per law.

¶10

In that view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, the 3^rd respondent is hereby directed to consider the petitioner’s representation afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶11

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶12

_________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶13

18.12.2020 Mjl/*

¶14

¶15

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶16

WRIT PETITION No. 24091 OF 2020 (disposed of)

¶17

18.12.2020

¶18

Mjl/*

¶19

Katikam Venkatesh, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Katikam Venkatesh, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Satyavathi Vs the State of Ap

Mamidi Surya Kumari, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Ganesh Constructions Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Penta Venkata Ramana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Manna Industries Limited Vs The Director of Mines and Geology

M/s. Benita Granites Limited, Vs The Director of Mines and Geology