Disposed

Penaka Subhash Chandera Bose, v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Mar 2023WP/4256/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order considered multiple writ petitions challenging the seizure of goods vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Single Judge directed the respondents to issue fresh show cause notices and complete inquiries after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to provide explanation within three weeks after receiving fresh show cause notice; respondents to complete inquiry and pass orders within one month.

Penaka Subhash Chandera Bose, Vs the State of Ap — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.5737, 4256, 4442, 4444, 4449, 4454, 5689, 5708 and 5723 of 2020

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

These Writ Petitions came to be filed under Article 226 of

¶5

the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

¶6

W.P.No.5737 of 2020:-

¶7

“to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in seizing the vehicle of the petitioner plying on goods carriage vide vehicle Registration No.AP03 TL 3656 under Section 190(1) and 190(2) of the MV Act as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules and declare the action of the respondents in detaining the vehicle of the petitioner plying on the goods carriage with valid permit without releasing the vehicle in terms of A.P.Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 as illegal, improper and unjust and direct the respondents not to resort to seizing of the vehicle of the petitioner plying on the goods carriage henceforth, unless grave irregularities exist i.e., contravention of Sections 3, 4, 39 and 66 of the MV Act, 1988 and declare the issuing of show cause notice dated 18.02.2020 for cancellation of registration of the petitioner’s vehicle bearing No.AP03 TL 3656 by the 5^th respondent as illegal and unconstitutional and subsequently declare the petitioner is entitled for the damages for the loss of business and reputation as determined by the Hon’ble Court and consequently to direct the respondents to refund the tax paid for the seized vehicle from the date of seizure till the release of the vehicle….”

¶8

¶9

W.P.No.4256 of 2020:-

¶10

“………. to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seizing the vehicle of the petitioner plying on goods carriage HMV Vehicle Registration No NLO1 AC 3676 Under Section 391, 192, 1 200 of MV Act as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of Motive Vehicles Act and Rules and to declare the action of the respondents in detaining the vehicle of the petitioner plying on the good carriage without releasing the vehicle in terms of A P Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as illegal, improper and unjust and to direct the respondents not to resort to seizing of the vehicle of the petitioner playing on the goods carriage henceforth unless grave irregularities exists i.e., contravention of Section 3, 4, 39 and 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and declare that the petitioner is entitled for the damages for the loss of business and reputation as determined by this Honble Court and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the said amount to the petitioner direct the respondents to refund the tax paid for the seized vehicle from the date of seizure till the release of the vehicle…”

¶11

W.P.No.4442 of 2020:-

¶12

“….to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in directing to surrender the vehicle bearing Nos. AP 26 TL 5959 and AP 02 TH 3594 pursuant to the undertaking letter dated 13.02.2020 is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of MV Act, apart from Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents 2 to 5 not to insist the petitioner to surrender the vehicles bearing Nos. AP 26 TL 5959 and AP 02 TH 3594 pursuant to the undertaking letter dated 13.02.2020…”

¶13

W.P.No.4444 of 2020:-

¶14

“………..to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in directing to surrender the vehicle bearing No AP

¶15

¶16

02 TH 4062 pursuant to the undertaking letter dated 13.02.2020 is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of MV Act apart from Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents 2 to 5 not to insist the petitioner to surrender the vehicle bearing No AP AP 02 TH 4062 pursuant to the undertaking letter dated 13.02.2020…”

¶17

W.P.No.4449 of 2020:-

¶18

“…to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in directing to surrender the vehicle bearing No NLO1 AC 1332 pursuant to the undertaking letter dated 13.02.2020 is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of MV Act, apart from Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents 2 to 5 not to insist the petitioner to surrender the vehicle bearing No NLO1 AC 1332 pursuant to the undertaking letter dated 13.02.2020…”

¶19

W.P.No.4454 of 2020:-

¶20

“…….to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in directing to surrender the vehicle bearing No AP 02 TH 4464 pursuant to the undertaking letter dated 13.02.2020 As illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of MV Act, apart from Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents 2 to 5 not to insist the petitioner to surrender the vehicle bearing No AP 02 TH 4464 pursuant to the undertaking letter dated 13.02.2020

¶21

W.P.No.5689 of 2020:-

¶22

“….to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seizing the vehicle of the petitioner plying on goods carriage vide vehicle Registration No AP 03 TL 4347 Under Section 190 1 and 1902 of the MV Act as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act,

¶23

¶24

and Rules and declare the action of the respondents in detaining the vehicle of the petitioner plying on the goods carriage with valid permit without releasing the vehicle in terms of A P Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 as illegal improper and unjust and direct the respondents not to resort to seizing of the vehicle of the petitioner plying on the goods carriage hence forth unless grave irregularities exist i.e contravention of Sections 3 4 39 and 66 of the MV Act 1988 and declare the issuing of show cause notice Dt 1 02 2020 for cancellation of registration of the petitioners vehicle bearing No AP 03 TL 4347 by the Stn respondent as illegal and unconstitutional and subsequently declare the petitioner is entitled for the damages for the loss of business and reputation as determined by the Hon’ble Court and consequently direct the respondents to pay the said amount to the petitioner direct the respondents to refund the tax paid for the seized vehicle from the date of seizure till the release of the vehicle..”

¶25

W.P.No.5708 of 2020:-

¶26

“…to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seizing the vehicle of the petitioner plying on goods carriage vide vehicle Registration No AP 03 TL 45 09 Under Section 190 1 and 1902 of the MV Act as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules and declare the action of the respondents in detaining the vehicle of the petitioner plying on the goods carriage with valid permit without releasing the vehicle in terms of A P Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 as illegal, improper and unjust and direct the respondents not to resort to seizing of the vehicle of the petitioner plying on the goods carriage hence forth unless grave irregularities exist i.e., contravention of Sections 3 4 39 and 66 of the MV Act 1988 and declare the issuing of show cause notice Dated 18.02.2020 for cancellation of registration of the petitioners vehicle bearing No AP 03 TL 4509 by the 5th respondent as illegal, unconstitutional and subsequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for the damages for the loss of business and reputation as determined by the Hon’ble Court and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the

¶27

¶28

said amount to the petitioner and also direct the respondents to refund the tax paid for the seized vehicle from the date of seizure till the release of the vehicle …”

¶29

W.P.No.5723 of 2020:-

¶30

“……to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seizing the vehicle of the petitioner plying on goods carriage vide vehicle Registration No AP 03 TL 4595 Under Section 190 1 and 1902 of the MV Act as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules and declare the action of the respondents in detaining the vehicle of the petitioner plying on the goods carriage with valid permit without releasing the vehicle in terms of A P Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 as illegal, improper and unjust and direct the respondents not to resort to seizing of the vehicle of the petitioner plying on the goods carriage hence forth unless grave irregularities exist i.e., contravention of Sections 3 4 39 and 66 of the MV Act 1988 and declare the issuing of show cause notice Dated 17.02.2020 for cancellation of registration of the petitioners vehicle bearing No AP 03 TL 4595 by the 5th respondent as illegal, unconstitutional and subsequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for the damages for the loss of business and reputation as determined by the Hon’ble Court and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the said amount to the petitioner and also direct the respondents to refund the tax paid for the seized vehicle from the date of seizure till the release of the vehicle…. ”

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Transport for the respondents and perused the material placed on record.

¶32

It appears that, in some cases show cause notices were issued prior to filing of the writ petitions, for which the petitioners have submitted their explanation. In some other

¶33

¶34

cases show cause notices were issued after filing of the writ petitions.

¶35

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this Court in similar circumstances in W.P.No. 11573 of 2020 has passed orders on 28.07.2020. The operative portion of the order is extracted below:-

¶36

“Therefore, the impugned orders issued by the 2^nd respondent in R.No.AP0020509382020, R.No.AP0020509522020, R.No.AP002050932020, R.No.AP0020509362020 and R.No.AP0020509542020, dated 03.06.2020, dated 03.06.2020 are set aside, directing the 2^nd respondent to complete the enquiry, pursuant to the show cause notices issued in R.No.38/A1/2020 for the said vehicles and the explanation, given by the petitioners, dated 26.02.2020, on merits by giving due opportunity to the petitioners and others concerned by following the Provisions of the MV Act and the MV Rules and the said enquiry shall be completed and appropriate orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible...”

¶37

Therefore, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions following the identical lines as indicated in the aforementioned writ petition by directing the respondents to issue show cause notice to all the petitioners afresh calling upon their explanation within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receiving such show cause notice, within a period of three weeks, the

¶38

¶39

petitioners are directed to submit their explanation and basing on which the respondents are further directed to complete the enquiry after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month on receipt of explanation of the petitioners.

¶40

Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶42

_______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

Date : 15.03.2023

PSR/KBS

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶47

WRIT PETITION Nos.5737, 4256, 4442, 4444, 4449,

¶48

4454, 5689, 5708 and 5723 of 2020

¶49

Date: 15.03.2023

¶50

PSR/KBS

Penaka Subhash Chandera Bose, v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Penaka Subhash Chandera Bose, v. the State of Ap

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

N.Venkata Reddy, Vs The Regional Transport Officer/Licensing Authority

Karri Rama Lakshmi Vs the State of Ap

Dudekula Dastagiri Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Vadlamudi Yugandhar Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. M.Venkataramana Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gaddam Venkateswarla Reddy Vs the State of Ap