Disposed

Uppu Srinivasu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Dec 2021WP/28417/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner questioned a writ petition challenging the issuance of a memo demanding a bank guarantee for the release of a seized lorry. The Court disposed of the petition by directing respondents to accept immovable property or third-party security instead and ordered the vehicle's release.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to release the vehicle upon production of immovable property security or third-party immovable property security executed via a personal bond.

Uppu Srinivasu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

W.P.No.28417 of 2021

¶3

ORDER

¶4

The memo issued by respondent No.2 directing the petitioner to produce bank guarantee for Rs.5,00,000 from any nationalized bank with a validity of two years, for release of seized vehicle is questioned in the writ petition as being illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home 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 agreement holder of Lorry bearing No. AP 16 TV 5409 vide agreement dated 01.02.2021. The vehicle is being used for transportation of goods while so on 10.04.2021 at 11.00 pm, when the lorry was placed at Tatharao Colony nearby National College Dumping Yard at that juncture the Inspector of Police, Inaguduru along with his staff and Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) intercepted the lorry and seized the same along with the stock in the said lorry.” On 11.04.2021 the 4^th respondent registered a case in Crime No.65/2021 for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1965 [for short, ‘E.C.Act’] alleging that the vehicle is being used to carry PDS rice. As proceedings under section 6-A of

¶7

¶8

the E.C Act were initiated, petitioner filed a petition before respondent No.2 for grant of interim custody of the vehicle. The impugned notice was issued directing the petitioner to obtain bank guarantee for Rs.5,00,000 for release of the subject vehicle. Aggrieved of the same, the Writ Petition is filed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the agreement holder of the vehicle and he is not aware whether the rice bags loaded in the vehicle are PDS rice or not. Petitioner is no way concerned with the rice. Petitioner’s family depends on the income derived from the vehicle for their livelihood. It is very difficult for the petitioner to obtain bank guarantee for Rs.5,00,000/-, Petitioner is ready and willing to furnish third party surety/collateral security/personal bond 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 immovable property security / third party immovable property security by executing a personal bond in favor of the appropriate authority strictly adhering to the provisions of Registration Act and Stamp Act as per the value fixed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and, on production of such immovable property as

¶11

¶12

security and valid vehicle documents, the respondents are directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner lorry bearing No. AP 16 TV 5409 to the petitioner towards interim custody. The petitioner shall give proof of ownership of the vehicle and an undertaking that he will produce the vehicle as and when required by the respondents 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 of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶15

___________________ M.GANGA RAO, J

¶16

02.12.2021 ssp

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶19

W.P.No.28417 of 2021

Date: 02.12.2021

ssp

__________________ M.GANGA RAO, J

¶38

02.11.2021 ssp

¶39

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶40

¶41

WRIT PETITION No.20976 OF 2021

¶42

01.11.2021

¶43

ssp

Uppu Srinivasu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uppu Srinivasu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Afroz Khan Vs the State of Ap

Kalakada Kaladhar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Balaji Trading Company Vs the State of Ap

Konanki Jayaramulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh