Allowed

Ediga Yallagoudu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Apr 2021WP/7489/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging a condition requiring the petitioner to furnish a Fixed Deposit Receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- for interim custody of a seized vehicle. The Court set aside the requirement and directed the release of the vehicle against minor collateral security.

What did the court decide?

The condition to furnish a Fixed Deposit Receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- for interim custody of the seized vehicle is set aside. The vehicle is to be released to the petitioner against collateral security.

Ediga Yallagoudu, Vs The State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.7489 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶5

“..to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent’s proceedings vide C.No.172/SEB-KUR/2021, dated 13-02-2021 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) in any nationalized bank in favour of respondent NO.3 and not allowing local surety/immovable property to release the vehicle as illegal, arbitrary, injustice and violative of Article 19,21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the same by directing respondent No.3 to release the vehicle i.e., Maruti Swift Car bearing No. AP 21 AD 8848 to the petitioner forthwith for interim custody of the vehicle and pass such other order or orders as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶6

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

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on application filed by the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent passed orders vide C.No.172/SEB-KUR/2021, dated 13-02-2021 for interim custody of the seized vehicle to the petitioner, subject to furnishing Fixed Deposit Receipt for an mount of Rs.2,00,000/-

¶8

¶9

from any National Bank in the name of Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, for the value of seized vehicle.

¶10

Aggrieved by the said condition, the present writ 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 by the 3^rd respondent to furnish a Fixed Deposit Receipt for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the value of the seized 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 Government Pleaders appearing for the

¶13

Respondents would submit that to protect the interest of the Government, such condition is imposed.

¶14

In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed and

¶15

the condition imposed by the 3^rd respondent vide proceedings in C.No.172/SEB-KUR/2021, dated 13-02-2021 is set aside and the respondents are directed to release the seized Vehicle i.e., Maruti Swift Car bearing No. AP 21 AD 8848 for interim custody of the petitioner by taking collateral 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

¶16

¶17

same. The petitioner shall produce the vehicle whenever he is directed to do so by the Lower court.

¶18

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in the

¶19

Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶20

______________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶21

Date: 01.04.2021

¶22

Note: Furnish CC by today

¶23

B/o eha

¶24

¶25

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.7489 OF 2021

¶27

01.04.2021

¶28

eha

Ediga Yallagoudu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ediga Yallagoudu, 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

Madduri Nagendra Reddy Vs State of Ap

Eirothi Narasingarao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G. Sumalatha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dantuluri Srinivas Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Baji Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yandrapati Narsamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh