Allowed

P. Naga Subba Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Mar 2021WP/6200/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 3,50,000 as security to obtain interim custody of a seized vehicle. The court set aside the fixed deposit requirement and directed release of the vehicle against collateral security.

What did the court decide?

Condition to deposit Fixed Deposit of Rs. 3,50,000 set aside; vehicle released for interim custody by taking collateral/immovable property security; petitioner restrained from alienating vehicle.

P. Naga Subba Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

¶2

WRIT PETITON No.6200 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 proceedings C.No.224/SEB-ATP/2021, dated 22.02.2021 issued by the Superintendent of Police cum Confiscating Authority, Anantapur, Anantapur District, thereby directing the petitioner to deposit Fixed Deposit of Rs. 3,50,000/- as a condition precedent for giving interim custody of vehicle bearing Number AP 26 TB 8729 detained in connection with Crime No. 14 of 2021 of Tadipatri Town Police Station, Tadipatri, Anantapur District, pending confiscation proceedings as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to give interim custody of vehicle to the petitioner pending confiscation proceedings by accepting third party solvencies equivalent to official value of vehicle and personnel bond furnished by the petitioner.”

¶7

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

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2^nd respondent has issued Proceedings vide C.No.224/SEB-ATP/2021, dated 22.02.2021 d irected the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs and fifty thousand only) by way of Fixed Deposit towards security deposit in the name of the 2^nd respondent to release the seized vehicle i.e., Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No.AP 26 TB 8729 to be given to the petitioner on interim custody which was seized by the 3^rd respondent in connection with Crime No.14 of 2021, dated 14.01.2021. Aggrieved by the condition that the

¶9

¶10

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

¶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 Prohibition & Excise and Home do not oppose the Writ Petition.

¶13

In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed and the condition imposed in the impugned proceedings of the 2^nd respondent insofar as submitting the Fixed Deposit Receipt is set aside and the respondents are directed to release the vehicle i.e., Bolero, bearing Registration No.AP 26 TB 8729, for interim custody of the petitioner by taking collateral security/ immovable property security for the value of the said vehicle from the petitioner.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶17

Date: 18 -03-2021 KK

¶18

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶20

WRIT PETITON No.6200 of 2021

¶21

Date: 18-03-2021

¶22

P. Naga Subba Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Naga Subba Reddy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T Ramachandrappa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Lakshmi Sai Enterprises, Vs The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Ramoju Satyavati, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Vennapusa Reddy Gari Cements Private Limited Vs Sri. Gopala Krishna Dwivedi

Chokka Babuji, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rotte Rama Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh. Rep. by its Principal Secretary.