Allowed

Robin Vikas K. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Mar 2021WP/6445/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the condition imposed on the petitioner to deposit Rs. 5,20,000 as security for interim custody of a seized lorry. The Court set aside the fixed deposit requirement and directed release of the vehicle against collateral or immovable property security.

What did the court decide?

The condition requiring Fixed Deposit of Rs. 5,20,000 was set aside. Respondents directed to release the lorry to the petitioner against collateral or immovable property security.

Robin Vikas K. Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH WRIT PETITON No.6445 of 2021

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

¶4

India, seeking the following relief:

¶5

“ to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 imposing condition under proceedings C.No. 1047/SEB-KUR/2020, dated 30.12.2020, thereby directing the petitioner to deposit Fixed Deposit of Rs. 5,20,000/- as a condition precedent for giving interim custody of vehicle bearing No. TS 09 EZ 9476 detained in connection with Cr.No. 1113 of 2020 on the file of Kurnool Taluk P.S as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to set aside the proceedings to release interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner.”

¶6

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

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2^nd respondent has issued vide proceedings C.No.1047/SEB-KUR/2020, dated 30.12.2020, d irected the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,20,000/- (Rupees five lakhs and twenty 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., Lorry bearing Registration No. TS 09 EZ 9476 to be given to the petitioner on interim custody which was seized by the 3^rd respondent in connection with Crime No.1113 of 2020, dated 28.10.2020. 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.

¶8

¶9

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.

¶10

Learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Prohibition

¶11

& Excise and Home do not oppose the Writ Petition.

¶12

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., Lorry bearing Registration No. TS 09 EZ 9476, for interim custody of the petitioner by taking collateral security/ immovable property security for the value of the said vehicle from the petitioner.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶16

Date: 20-03-2021 KK

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶19

WRIT PETITON No.6445 of 2021

¶20

Date: 20-03-2021

¶21

Robin Vikas K. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Robin Vikas K. 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

Perabattula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kodi Mahesh Anil Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Jafar Basha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Raghava Project Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nammi Gouri Naidu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nagaraju Buddiga Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh