Allowed

P.Brahmayya v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Excise-Ii)

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Mar 2021WP/5538/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition challenging a condition imposed on the petitioner to furnish a fixed deposit receipt for vehicle value during interim custody proceedings. The condition was set aside, and the vehicle was to be released subject to alternative security.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Condition to furnish fixed deposit receipt set aside. Petitioner directed to release vehicle against collateral/immovable property security. Petitioner not to alienate or change

P.Brahmayya Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (Excise-Ii) — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

¶2

WRIT PETITON No.5538 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

¶5

India, seeking the following relief:

¶6

“ to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the order of the 3^rd respondent passed in C.No.1642/SEB-ATP/2020, dated 15.02.2021 in so far directing the petitioner to furnish fixed deposit receipt for Rs.5,50,000/- towards the value of the vehicle, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to release the vehicle without the said condition and to pass such other order or orders..”

¶7

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

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on receipt of application filed by the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent issued Proceedings vide C.No.1642/SEBATP/2020, dated 15.02.2021 directed the petitioner that (i) the owner shall furnish a fixed deposit receipt (FDR) for Rs.5,50,000/towards the value of the vehicle in favour of the Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuram; (ii) the ow2ner shall submit an undertaking to the effect that he shall not alter or alienate or sell the vehicle in any manner and keep it in the same condition as it is now and produce the same at the place and time as directed by the authorities, as and when required till finalization of confiscation proceedings.

¶9

Aggrieved by the condition that the petitioner has to furnish the Fixed Deposit Receipt as interim custody of the subject vehicle, the present petition is filed.

¶10

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no dispute about the ownership of the vehicle and the condition imposed to furnish a fixed deposit receipt 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.

¶12

Learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Excise and

¶13

Home do not oppose the Writ Petition.

¶14

In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed and the condition imposed in the impugned proceedings of the 3^rd respondent insofar as submitting the Fixed Deposit Receipt is set aside and the respondents are directed to release the vehicle i.e., Bolero Car bearing Registration No.AP 39 TG 7724, for interim custody of the petitioner by taking collateral security/ immovable property security for the value of the said vehicle from the petitioner.

¶15

It is further directed that the petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle, or change its physical features. The petitioner shall produce the vehicle whenever he is directed to do so by the concerned authorities. No order as to costs.

¶16

Consequently, miscellaneous application, if any, shall stand closed.

¶17

Date: 09-03-2021 Note : C.C. two days. (b/o) Gvl

¶18

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶19

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶21

WRIT PETITON No.5538 of 2021

¶22

Date: 09-03-2021

¶23

Gvl

P.Brahmayya v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Excise-Ii)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Brahmayya v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Excise-Ii)

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

M/s. Sri Rama Mines and Minerals, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Sri Maheshwari Stone Crusher Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S Sri Maheshwori Stone Crusher Vs State of Ap

Molla Jakir Hussain, Kurnool Dist Vs Porl Secy, Mines and Industries, Hyd and 4 Ot

Mula Maisura Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Shaik Shavali Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh