Disposed

B.Sobharani v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Dec 2021WP/28468/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court discharged a Writ Petition challenging an order directing payment of a bank guarantee to release a seized vehicle during 6-A proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act. The Court substituted the demand for a bank guarantee with security in the form of immovable property or a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to release the vehicle upon submission of immovable property security or a personal bond, valuing the property as per Motor Vehicle Inspector.

B.Sobharani Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.28468 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The order dated 21.10.2021 passed by respondent No.2 directing the petitioner to produce bank guarantee for Rs.1,50,000/- from any nationalized bank, for release of seized vehicle, pending finalization of 6-A proceedings is questioned in the writ petition as being illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

Heard learned counsel appearing 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 she is the owner of vehicle bearing No.AP 02 TB 9457. The vehicle is being used for transportation of goods. On 16.09.2021, the vehicle was intercepted by the Vigilance and Enforcement Officer at Singannagutta, NH 544 DD, Atmakur village and the same was seized and a case has been registered in Crime No.186/2021 for the offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [for short, ‘E.C Act’], on the ground that PDS rice is being illegally transported in the said vehicle. Thereafter, 3^rd respondent reported the same to the 2^nd respondent to initiate proceedings under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act. Petitioner filed a petition before 2^nd respondent for grant of interim custody of the vehicle. The impugned order was passed directing the petitioner to produce bank guarantee for Rs.1,50,000/- for release of the subject vehicle. Aggrieved of the same, the Writ Petition is filed.

¶7

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and she 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 transportation of the vehicle for their livelihood. It is very difficult for the petitioner to obtain bank guarantee for Rs.1,50,000/-. 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.

¶9

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 2 & 3 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 immovable property security/third party immovable property security by executing a personal bond in favour 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 security and valid vehicle documents required under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, the respondents are directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing No.AP 02 TB 9457 to the petitioner towards 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 E.C Act.

¶10

¶11

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

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

¶13

_______________ M. GANGA RAO, J 03.12.2021 Vjl

¶14

¶15

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.28468 of 2021

¶17

03.12.2021

¶18

Vjl

B.Sobharani v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Sobharani 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

Konanki Jayaramulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kadem Madhavi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Chalamala Rama Subba Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Naresh Vs The State of AndhraPradesh

Nalagati Atmananda Satyanarayana Naidu Vs The Collector and District Magistrate

K.M. Abdual Hafeez Khan, Vs Ms. Nagalakshmi Selvarajan I.A.S.