The Court closed a writ petition challenging the seizure of a vehicle for transporting PDS rice. The Court recorded that the 2nd respondent had issued a memo directing the petitioner to prove ownership and furnish a bank guarantee for the vehicle's release.
No further orders passed; writ petition closed.
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 SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.26857 of 2021
ORDER:-
This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:-
“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in seizing the Mahendra Alfa Auto bearing registration No.AP31TQ 1209 belonging to the petitioner on 21.08.2021 on the allegation that PDS rice is being transported in the vehicle as wholly arbitrary, illegal, eccentric contrary to provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, A.P State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, Code of Criminal Procedure besides being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the Mahendra Alfa Auto bearing registration No.AP31TQ 1209 belonging to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders...”
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.
In pursuance of the order dated 18.11.2021, in this writ petition M.Venu Gopal, Joint Collector appeared in person and stated that counter is filed inter alia stating that the petitioner has filed an application on 13.09.2021 before the 2nd respondent for release of the seized vehicle. Though the petitioner filed an application for release of seized vehicle, no supporting document to show that he is the registered owner has been filed along with his application. As there are no documents available to show that the writ petitioner is registered owner to take action on the application filed on 13.09.2021, the 2nd respondent has informed the writ
2
petitioner orally to submit documentary evidence to show his ownership against the seized vehicle. Thereafter the 2nd respondent passed memo dated 19.11.2021 stating as follows:
“Therefore Sri Kodavali Siva Prasad, S/o Saibabu, R/o D.No. 9-6-137, Sari Ram Nagar, High School Road, New Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam claimed to be Owner of Mahindra Vehicle bearing Regd.No.AP 31 TQ 1209 is hereby directed to prove his ownership against the seized vehicle and submit relevant documents to this court. On submission of relevant documents proving his ownership against the seized vehicle i.e., Auto bearing Regd.No.AP 31 TQ 1209, he is also directed to furnish Bank Guarantee for Rs.20,000/- being the cost of seized vehicle for its release by this Court.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the
memo passed by the 2nd respondent directing release of the seized vehicle no further orders need be passed in this writ petition and the writ petition can be closed.
Recording the said submissions, writ petition is closed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending
in the writ petition shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO
Date: 30.11.2021 Scs
3
54
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.26857 OF 2021
Date: 30.11.2021
Scs
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be closed given that the 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to prove ownership and furnish a bank guarantee.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Sri Kodavali Siva Prasad
2nd Respondent
3rd Respondent
M. GANGA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
