Partly allowed

Dagumati Santhamma v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC28 Dec 2020WP/24553/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court amended the security requirement for releasing a transport vehicle seized for suspected PS violations. The court directed release upon furnishing immovable property security based on the vehicle's market value rather than the requested bank guarantee.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 is directed to release the vehicle upon furnishing immovable property security based on the vehicle's value fixed by a Motor Vehicle Inspector and providing an undertaking.

Dagumati Santhamma Vs State of Ap — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No.24553 of 2020

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. At their request, the Writ Petition is being disposed of.

¶4

The action of respondent No.2, in passing the impugned order dated 27.11.2020, directing the petitioner to furnish Bank Guarantee for Rs.6.00 lakhs for release of Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing No.AP 26W 4255, is questioned in the Writ Petition as being illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

Petitioner claims to be the owner of lorry bearing No.AP 26W 4255; on 08.10.2020. A Parcel Service, by name ‘Ramana Reddy Daily Parcel Service’, engaged the subject lorry for transportation of goods from Nellore to Ongole; when the goods were being unloaded at the parcel office in Ongole, respondent No.3 made a surprise check and seized the subject lorry under a cover of panchanama dated 08.10.2020 alleging that Redgram and Bengal gram bags which are there in the subject vehicle belong to Public Distribution System, though those goods were covered by receipts issued by the parcel service; even, according to the pachanama, there is nothing to say that Redgram Dal and Bengalgram Dal belong to Public Distribution System; there is no contravention of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018; respondent No.3

¶6

¶7

did not take any sample from the seized stock to send for analysis; and by the impugned order dated 27.11.2020, respondent No.2 ordered release of the subject vehicle on production of bank guarantee for Rs.6.00 lakhs, which is illegal. Hence the Writ Petition.

¶8

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle is 17 years old and the goods seized were worth about Rs.3.00 lakhs.

¶9

Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that true facts would come to light only if the enquiry is conducted, under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), and that the petitioner may be directed to furnish Bank Guarantee for Rs.6.00 lakhs on any Nationalized Bank for release of the subject vehicle, as directed by the authority.

¶10

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, in similar facts and circumstances, this Court ordered release of the vehicle on furnishing personal bond equal to the value of the vehicle.

¶11

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appropriate authority is directed to get the vehicle valued by the concerned Motor Vehicle Inspector in the presence of the petitioner after serving notice on her and the petitioner is directed to furnish the immovable property security by executing a bond in favour of respondent No.2 strictly adhering to the Stamps and Registration Laws as per the value fixed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and, on production

¶12

¶13

of such immovable property as security, respondent No.2 is directed to release the Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing No.AP 26W 4255 as interim custody. The petitioner shall give proof of ownership of the vehicle and an undertaking that she will not alienate, alter its nature or create any encumbrance over the same, pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act.

¶14

With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed

¶15

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if

¶17

any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶18

_________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶19

Date:28.12.2020 Note:CC two days bo Usd

Dagumati Santhamma v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dagumati Santhamma v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Nspr Kmc (Jv) Vs Union of India

S. Shafi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Katikam Venkatesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Venkatesulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chowdegari Chandra Sekhar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

KallaButchiabbai, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh