Allowed

Dara Swamy Manoj, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Apr 2021WP/6029/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition filed against the inaction of the third respondent in considering the petitioner's request to release a seized vehicle. The court directed the respondent to decide on the representation within a week and granted interim release against collateral security.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to dispose of representation within one week; vehicle released to petitioner under interim custody against collateral security.

Dara Swamy Manoj, Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND WRIT PETITION No.6029 of 2021

¶2

O R D E R:

¶3

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the inaction of the 3^rd respondent in not considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 04.02.2021 for releasing the petitioner’s vehicle AP 16 DB 4886 Maruti-Dzire VDI BSIV motor car which was seized in connection with Crime No.433 of 2020 Chillakallu Police Station, Krishna District under Sections 34(A) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

¶4

Heard Sri V.N.V. Surya Dattu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the material available on record. With the consent of both counsel, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶5

The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle AP 16 DB 4886 Maruti-Dzire VDI BSIV motor car. The said vehicle was seized by the 3^rd respondent alleging illegal transportation of the liquor bottles and a case was registered in Crime No.433 of 2020 of Chillakallu Police Station, Krishna District under Sections 34(A) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

¶6

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 04.02.2021, the petitioner made an application to the respondents Nos.2 and 3 seeking to release the seized vehicle, but it was not considered till date. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ petition is filed.

¶8

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that after receipt of the representation of the petitioner, dated 04.02.2021, the 3^rd respondent sought ownership particulars of the vehicle from the concerned RTA office and they did not receive those particulars till date.

¶9

The reason submitted by the learned Government Pleader for not considering the representation of the petitioner for the last 2 months is not acceptable. It is the duty of the respondents to get required particulars from the concerned authorities. The representation of the petitioner has to be considered in a reasonable time, as the said vehicle was seized on 19.06.2020 and thereafter the same was kept in the 3^rd respondent’s police station. The said vehicle will be damaged due to exposure to the sun and rain.

¶10

In view of the same, in the considered opinion of this Court, interest of justice would be met by directing the

¶11

¶12

respondents to consider and pass orders to dispose of the representation, dated 04.02.2021 submitted by the petitioner.

¶13

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pass orders on the representation, dated 04.02.2021 submitted by the petitioner to release the vehicle AP 16 DB 4886 Maruti-Dzire VDI BSIV motor car, for interim custody of the petitioner by taking collateral security for the value of the said vehicle from the petitioner within a period of one (1) week from today. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

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

¶15

_________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶16

Dt. 07-04-2021

¶17

Note: Issue CC tomorrow. B/o PGR

¶18

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.6029 of 2021

¶21

Dt. 07-04-2021

¶22

Note: Issue CC tomorrow .

¶23

B/o

¶24

PGR

Dara Swamy Manoj, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dara Swamy Manoj, v. 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

Thangallapelli Prashanth at Thangallapalli Prasanth, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kottapalli.Prabhavathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Juwadi Sriramamurthy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Subrahmanyam Vs Sri Malakondaiah IPS

Tallapogu Venkateswarlu Vs Sri Murali

Bommareddy Ashok Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh