Allowed

S. Lakshmi Narayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Feb 2021WP/3714/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice D. Ramesh allowed a writ petition filed challenging an impugned proceeding requiring the petitioner to furnish a fixed deposit of Rs.5 lakhs for the release of a seized vehicle. The court set aside the fixed deposit condition and directed the respondent to release the vehicle by accepting collateral or immovable property security.

What did the court decide?

Condition to furnish fixed deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- is set aside; respondent directed to release vehicle taking collateral or immovable property security.

S. Lakshmi Narayana, Vs The State of Andhra… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

¶3

WRIT PETITON NO.3714 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the proceedings Rc.No.879/2020 issued by the 3^rd respondent asking for fixed deposit for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to release the seized vehicle bearing No.KA 05 AH 9806 which is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to release the vehicle and to pass such other order or orders …”

¶7

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleaders for Prohibition & Excise appearing for the 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 Rc.No.879/2020 dated 13.11.2020 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.5,00,000/- obtained from any nationalized bank in favour of the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool. 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.5,00,000/towards the value of the vehicle is an onerous condition and the petitioner is not in a position to furnish the same and prayed to relax the condition.

¶10

¶11

Learned Government Pleader did not refute the said submission.

¶12

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 05 AH 9806, 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.

¶13

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

¶14

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶15

Date: 16.02.2021 B/o. EPS

¶16

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

¶19

WRIT PETITON NO.3714 of 2021

¶20

Dated: 16.02.2021

¶21

EPS

S. Lakshmi Narayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Lakshmi Narayana, 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

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

D Manjunath Vs the State of Ap

Yandapalli Srikanth, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Vegunta Rajani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh