Dismissed

Afroz Khan v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Dec 2021WP/28293/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed against an endorsement requiring a fixed deposit for the release of a seized vehicle. Instead of a monetary deposit, the Court directed the release of the vehicle upon production of local third-party immovable property security based on a valuation and furnished by the Motor Vehicle Inspector.

What did the court decide?

The seized vehicle to be released against security of local third party immovable property based on valuation by Motor Vehicle Inspector.

Afroz Khan Vs the State of Ap — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.28293 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The endorsement issued by respondent No.2 dated 06.11.2021 in Roc E2/230/2021 directing the owner of the seized vehicle to produce deposit receipt for an amount of Rs.77,000/- for release of the seized vehicle bearing No.KA 55-5230, is questioned in the writ petition as being illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. With their consent, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.KA 55 5230. He is using the same for transportation of goods. On 15.08.2021 the vehicle was intercepted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Madanapalle, and a case in Crime No.898 of 2021 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [for short, ‘E.C. Act’] alleging that 27.28 quintals of PDS rice is being transported in the vehicle by one Nawab Basha. Thereafter, as proceedings under Section 6-A of the E.C Act were initiated, petitioner approached the 3^rd respondent and filed an application for interim custody of the vehicle. By the impugned endorsement, the 3^rd respondent ordered for

¶7

¶8

release of the seized vehicle on the petitioner producing deposit receipt for an amount of Rs.77,000/-. Aggrieved of the same, the Writ Petition is filed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Karnataka. The vehicle was intercepted and seized stating that the rice being transporting in the vehicle is PDS rice. Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. He is not aware whether the rice bags loaded in the vehicle are PDS or not. Petitioner is no way concerned with the rice. Petitioner depends on the income derived from the vehicle for his livelihood. It is very difficult for the petitioner to produce deposit receipt for an amount of Rs.77,000/-. The petitioner is ready and willing to furnish personal bond with local third party immovable property security/collateral security and will abide by the conditions that would be imposed while releasing the vehicle.

¶10

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the material record, this Court, in the interests of justice, felt it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to get the vehicle valued by the concerned Motor Vehicle Inspector in the presence of the petitioner after serving notice on him and the petitioner is directed to furnish local third party immovable property security by executing a bond in favour of the appropriate authority strictly adhering to the Stamps and Registration Laws as per the value fixed by

¶11

¶12

the Motor Vehicle Inspector and, on production of such immovable property as security, the respondents are directed to release the seized vehicle bearing No.KA 55 5230 to the petitioner towards interim custody. The petitioner shall give proof of ownership of the vehicle and produce valid vehicle documents and give an undertaking that he will not alienate, alter its nature or create any encumbrance over the same, pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the E.C Act.

¶13

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed

¶14

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if

¶16

any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶17

___________________ M. GANGA RAO, J

¶18

01.12.2021 Note: Issue CC by 02.12.2021 B/o Vjl

¶19

¶20

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.28293 of 2021

¶22

01.12.2021

¶23

Vjl

Afroz Khan v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afroz Khan v. the State of Ap

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

Smt. Mangala Varaiakshmi Vs Sankepalli Sivaiah

Dudi Indiraja at Kadali Indraja Vs Dudi Venkatesh

Nammi China Appala Naidu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Madamala Papi Reddy, Nellore Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., Rev. (C.S.) Dept. and 3 Ors.

Rajahmundry Urban Fair Price Shop Vs Prl. Secy., Food and Civil Supplies Dept. and 2 Ors.

Smt. Nukala Sravanthi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh