Allowed

Gavara Appalanaidu, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Apr 2021WP/8125/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a Writ Petition seeking release of seized vehicles. It held that vehicles are not liable to be confiscated unless specifically provided for, directing their release pending trial against payment of seignorage fee and an undertaking to produce them if required and not use them for illegal quarrying.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent No.3 to release seized vehicles to interim custody of petitioner subject to payment of Rs.55,000/- and filing of undertaking to produce vehicles as required and not use them for i

Gavara Appalanaidu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Writ Petition No.8125 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in seizing the petitioner’s vehicles i.e., JCB No.AP 35 AE 5916, Tipper bearing No. AP 31 TU 9259 and Tipper bearing No. AP 31 TA 0878.

¶5

Heard both sides.

¶6

The third respondent seized the said vehicles of the petitioner on the ground of illicit quarrying of gravel in Government land.

¶7

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Home, on instructions, states that as the petitioner was quarrying the gravel illegally, it is not a fit case to grant interim custody of the vehicles to the petitioner.

¶8

If the vehicles are exposed to sun and rain and are kept idle, they would be damaged. Petitioner claims to be the owner of the vehicles in question. Even if a person accused of an offence punishable under Section 379 IPC is convicted, the vehicle is not liable to be confiscated.

¶9

¶10

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to forthwith release the subject vehicles to the interim custody of the petitioner, subject to payment of normal seignorage fee i.e, Rs.55,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Five thousand only) and on filing an undertaking to the effect that they would not alienate, sell, encumber or transfer the subject vehicles in favour of third parties, pending investigation and trial, and they shall produce the vehicles as and when required by the competent authority, and that the vehicles shall not be used for carrying of any illegal quarrying of gravel without any valid permit. However, this Order will not preclude the concerned authority from conducting enquiry after release of the vehicles, if there are any violations. No costs.

¶11

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶12

_____________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶13

Date: 09-04-2021 Note: Issue C.C. today . B/o eha

¶14

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶16

Writ Petition No.8125 of 2021

¶17

Dt. 09-04-2021

¶18

eha

Gavara Appalanaidu, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gavara Appalanaidu, 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

Katam Anil Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Pompapathi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Narasimhulu Nayudu Srinivas, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Y.Prathap Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Anil Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nela Prabhakara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh