Allowed

D Manjunath v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Feb 2021WP/3631/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Writ Petition, the court considered a challenge to an order imposing a high fixed deposit receipt requirement for interim custody of a seized vehicle. The petitioner argued the condition was onerous and illegal. The government consented. The court allowed the petition, quashed the FDR condition, and directed the authorities to release the vehicle against collateral or immovable property se

What did the court decide?

The condition of furnishing a Fixed Deposit Receipt is set aside. Directing release of the vehicle against collateral or immovable property security.

D Manjunath Vs the State of Ap — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

¶3

WRIT PETITON NO.3631 of 2021

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

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

¶6

“…to issue a Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned orders of the 3^rd respondent passed in C.No.1595/SEB-ATP/2020 dated 29.12.2020 in imposing a condition of fixed deposit receipt (FDR) for Rs.7,50,000/- for release of the petitioner’s vehicle bearing No.KA 13 N 9375 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 19(1)(g), 21 of Constitution of India and subsequently modify the same by depositing 10% of the value of the vehicle and pass such other order or orders …”

¶7

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleaders for Prohibition & Excise and Home appearing for the respective respondents. With their consent, the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the application filed by the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent issued proceedings vide C.No. 1595/SEB-ATP/2020 dated 29.12.2020 for interim custody of the seized vehicle, to the petitioner, wherein the 3^rd respondent has imposed an onerous condition of furnishing a Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs.7,50,000/- obtained from any nationalized bank in favour of the Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuram. Aggrieved by the said condition, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no dispute about the ownership of the vehicle but the condition imposed, to furnish a fixed deposit receipt for Rs.7,50,000/towards the value of the vehicle is an onerous condition and the

¶10

¶11

petitioner is not in a position to furnish the same and prayed to relax the condition.

¶12

Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, did not oppose the Writ Petition.

¶13

In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed and the condition of the impugned proceedings of the 3^rd respondent is set aside and the respondents are directed to release the petitioner’s vehicle bearing No.KA 13 N 9375, for interim custody of the petitioner by taking collateral security/immovable property 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 concerned authorities.

¶14

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶15

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶16

Date: 16.02.2021 B/o. EPS

¶17

¶18

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

¶20

WRIT PETITON NO.3631 of 2021

¶21

Dated: 16.02.2021

¶22

EPS

D Manjunath v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D Manjunath 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Hari Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanna Nagaraju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rodda Anantha Rami Reddy Vs State of Ap

S. Lakshmi Narayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yandapalli Srikanth, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Vegunta Rajani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh