Disposed

A Tirupathi Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Nov 2022WP/35457/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the seizure of vehicles for agricultural use, alleging illegal criminal case registration. The court held the issue was identical to a previous order and disposed of the petition accordingly without costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of following the order in W.P.No.29867 of 2021. No costs awarded.

A Tirupathi Rao Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION No.35457 OF 2022

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

¶4

learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for the respondent No.1, the Government Pleader for Revenue for the 2^nd respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Home for the 3^rd respondent.

¶5

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the 3^rd respondent seized the Tractor bearing No.AP 39 FX 5336 and Trailer bearing No.AP 39 FX 5338 without following the due procedure.

¶6

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is using the Tractor cum Trailer bearing Nos.AP 39 FX 5336 and AP 39 FX 5338 for the agricultural and the commercial purpose. While so, on 22.10.2022, the 3^rd respondent seized the above said vehicle and registered a case in Crime No.121 of 2022 under Sections 379 of IPC and Section 21 (2) of MMDAR Act, which is contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 04.09.2019.

¶7

The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, at best the respondent counsel can impose the penalty under

¶8

¶9

the Clause 16 of G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 04.09.2019, instead of that the 3^rd respondent falsely registered a Criminal Case which is not warranted in the facts and circumstances.

¶10

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents submits that the seized vehicle of the petitioner would be dealt with by following the due procedure by the respondents and interim custody of the same would be considered as per law.

¶11

However, both the counsels submitted that the issue involved herein is similar and identical to the issue involved in W.P.No.29867 of 2021 and that the subject is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.29867 of 2021 dated 17.12.2021.

¶12

Accordingly, following the order in W.P.No.29867 of 2021 dated 17.12.2021, this writ petition is also disposed of. No costs.

¶13

Office is directed to append the copy of the order passed in W.P.No.29867 of 2021 dated 17.12.2021 to this order.

¶14

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

______________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶16

02.11.2022 Note: issue CC 04.11.2022 B/o:-PGT

¶17

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

¶19

WRIT PETITION No. 35457 OF 2022

¶20

02.11.2022

¶21

PGT

A Tirupathi Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Tirupathi Rao 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Sunita Vs State of Ap

Mallepogu Madanna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bande Harish Babu Vs the State of Ap

Smt.M.Jaya Satyavathi Devi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Lakhsmana, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

D Krishnama Naidu Vs the State of Ap