Disposed

Smt. Mohammad Naseema Begum, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Jun 2021WP/10857/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the seizure of her auto rickshaw, arguing it was arbitrary and violated fundamental rights. The Court held it lacked jurisdiction to release the vehicle and directed the petitioner to approach the Joint Collector regarding the 6-A proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to approach Joint Collector; Collector directed to pass reasoned order on release within two weeks of application.

Smt. Mohammad Naseema Begum, Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.10857 of 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶5

“….to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent No.3 in not releasing my vehicle Bajaj RE CNG AUTO RICKSHAW ECO green petrol CNG bearing Registration No.AP39 TF 0879 MD2A24AY4KWG58816, Engine No.24YWKG68844 with body type Bolted to Frame manufactured by Bajaj Auto Ltd. Seized in pursuance of the F.I.R.No.115 of 2021 dated 17.02.2021 registered by the 3^rd respondent inspite of the readiness to furnish 3^rd party security/surety to it as arbitrary, illegal, unjust whimsical and violative of Article, 14, 21, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to release my auto rickshaw forthwith in the interests of justice and pass such other order …”

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of the vehicle Bajaj RE CNG AUTO RICKSHAW ECO green petrol CNG bearing Registration No.AP 39 TF 0879 and the same was given to Mohammed Sufianulla, S/o.Ismail for plying the same on a contract stage carriage basis and he used to run the auto rickshaw within the 60 kms from her residential house. The said auto was seized along with the rice bags on the ground that the rice is PDS rice and illegally procured and the case in Cr.No.115 of 2021 dated 17.02.2021 was registered by the 3^rd respondent. Mr. Mohammed Sufianulla plying the auto rickshaw on contract basis to drop the passengers with luggage and load. He is innocent and he is nothing to do with the offences registered under Section 420 IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. She has also filed Crl.M.P.No.190 of 2021 in Cr.No.115 of 2021 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada under the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the said petition is still pending. The 3^rd respondent not produced vehicle before the Magistrate. The vehicle is lying in the open place and is getting damaged due to sunlight and rain.

¶7

¶8

The auto rickshaw is the only source of income for her family. Being aggrieved by the action of the 3^rd respondent in seizing the petitioner’s auto rickshaw and not releasing the same to her, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶9

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s son plying the auto rickshaw on contract carriage basis. On information of another auto driver to ply the passengers along with the luggage, he went there and picked up the passengers and loaded the rice bags into the auto. At that time, the 3^rd respondent along with his staff seized the auto rickshaw and rice bags under the cover of mediator panchanama dated 17.02.2021 and registered a case in Cr.No.115 of 2021. The petitioner has not committed any offence as enumerated under the F.I.R. and seizure of the vehicle is illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that the petitioner’s vehicle is getting damaged as the vehicle was kept in open place and exposed to sun and dust and sought for release of vehicle.

¶10

Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner’s auto rickshaw was seized in connection with the Cr.No.115 of 2021 dated 17.02.2021, registered for the offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The seizure is reported to the Joint Collector and 6-A proceedings were initiated by him. The petitioner has to approach the Joint Collector for release of the auto rickshaw pending 6A proceedings. This Court has no jurisdiction to release the auto rickshaw of the petitioner.

¶11

In the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsel and on perusal of the material record, this Court in the interests of justice, felt it, appropriate to dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority i.e., Joint Collector as the 6-A proceedings are already initiated and seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle is part of the 6-A proceedings, Joint Collector is competent to pass

¶12

¶13

appropriate order, for release of the vehicle within a period of seven(7) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On submission of such application for release of the vehicle, the Joint Collector shall pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of filing of such application and communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶14

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶15

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any pending shall stand closed.

¶16

__________________________ JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶17

Date: 10.06.2021 Note: Issue CC by 11.06.2021 (B/o) KLPD

¶18

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO.10857 of 2021

¶21

Date : 10.06.2021

¶22

Note: Issue CC by 11.06.2021 (B/o) KLPD

¶23

Smt. Mohammad Naseema Begum, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mohammad Naseema Begum, 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

Nagaram Kalyan Kumar (A-1) Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Thirumalaraju Venkateswarlu at Raju. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Alakunta Tirupathaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mrs Nirmala Johnson, Vs Csi Rayalseema Diocese

Kayala Ranga swamy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Mangalagiri Rahul Teja at Kings Rahul Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh