Allowed

Kanna Nagaraju, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Feb 2021WP/3480/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court directed the respondents to release the petitioner's seized vehicle by accepting third-party surety of immovable properties valued at 10% of the vehicle instead of a Fixed Deposit Receipt of 24 lakhs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's vehicle directed to be released against third-party surety of immovable properties for 10% of value instead of 24 lakhs FDR; vehicle not to be alienated or features changed.

Kanna Nagaraju, Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.3480 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 of Constitution of India, seeking following relief:

¶5

“…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 4^th respondent in not release of petitioner vehicle which was seized even though the petitioner have not involved in the offence is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to provisions of A.P.Excise Act and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to return the vehicle of the petitioner bearing no.AP 16 TJ 4878 of goods lorry by accepting 3^rd party surety of immovable properties for the value of 10 percent of vehicle instead of 24 lakhs for FDR…”.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Excise and Home, appearing for the respondents.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute about the ownership of the vehicle and to that effect, he filed copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle bearing No AP 16 TJ 4878.

¶8

Learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Excise and Home does not oppose the writ petition.

¶9

In that view of the matter and with the consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the vehicle Ashok Leyland Ltd. Cement Tanker bearing no.AP 16 TJ 4878 for interim custody of the petitioner by

¶10

taking collateral security for the value of the said vehicle from the petitioner. It is further directed that the petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle, shall not change its physical features or create any encumbrance or change on the same. The petitioner shall produce the vehicle whenever he is directed to do so by the lower Court. No costs.

¶11

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶12

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶13

Date: 15.02.2021 RD

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.3480 of 2021

¶16

Dated 15.02.2021

¶17

Kanna Nagaraju, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanna Nagaraju, 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

Kavati Chanikya, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Atta Thalupula Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.D.Jagjeevan Ram Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Hari Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rodda Anantha Rami Reddy Vs State of Ap

Shaik Muntaj Begum Vs State of Andhra Pradesh