Allowed

M. Pompapathi, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Apr 2021WP/7935/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition under Article 226, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the condition requiring the petitioner to furnish a Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs.1,00,000/- for interim custody of a seized vehicle. The respondents were directed to release the vehicle upon providing collateral security.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Condition imposing Fixed Deposit Receipt set aside. Respondents directed to release seized vehicle against collateral security. Petitioner directed not to alienate or change fea

M. Pompapathi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.7935 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

¶6

2^nd respondent in issuing impugned proceedings in C.No.96/SEB-KUR/2021, dated 16-02-2021, in imposing condition of Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs.1,00,000/- for the interim release of petitioner’s vehicle bearing No.AP 39 TJ 2934 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to grant interim custody of the vehicle bearing No. AP 39 TJ 2934 in favour of the petitioner without insisting FDR and pass such other order or orders as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶7

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

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on application filed by the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent passed orders vide C.No.96/SEB-KUR/2021, dated 16-02-2021 for interim custody of the seized vehicle to the petitioner, subject to furnishing Fixed Deposit Receipt for an mount of Rs.1,00,000/-

¶9

¶10

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

¶11

Aggrieved by the said condition, the present writ petition is filed.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no dispute about the ownership of the vehicle and the condition imposed by the 2^nd respondent to furnish a Fixed Deposit Receipt for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- 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.

¶13

Learned Government Pleaders appearing for the

¶14

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

¶15

In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed and the condition imposed by the 2^nd respondent vide proceedings in C.No.96/SEB-KUR/2021, dated 16-02-2021 is set aside and the respondents are directed to release the seized Vehicle bearing No. AP 39 TJ 2934 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 same. The petitioner

¶16

¶17

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 Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶19

______________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶20

Date: 08.04.2021

¶21

Note: Furnish CC by today

¶22

B/o eha

¶23

¶24

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.7935 OF 2021

¶26

Dt: 08.04.2021

¶27

eha

M. Pompapathi, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Pompapathi, 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

Dara Swamy Manoj, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Subrahmanyam Vs Sri Malakondaiah IPS

Tallapogu Venkateswarlu Vs Sri Murali

Katam Anil Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Narasimhulu Nayudu Srinivas, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

R Raghavendra Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh