Disposed

Chintham /Chintala Satish Kumar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Mar 2023WP/6722/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to transfer ownership of a vehicle despite an attachment order from a Special Judge in an ACB case. The Court avoided merits and directed the RTO to process the pending representation within two weeks before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the RTO to consider the representation dated 13.03.2023 and pass appropriate orders within two weeks.

Chintham /Chintala Satish Kumar Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.6722 of 2023

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶4

“to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent authorities in not transferring the ownership details of the car bearing no.AP07DD7809 on the application made by the Petitioner to the third party as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent authorities to transfer the ownership of the car bearing no.AP07DD7809 on the application made by the Petitioner to the third party….”

¶5

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has purchased a Innova Crysta Car vide registration No.AP07 DD 7809 from one Mudraboina Rekha, on 27.06.2019 and accordingly, the ownership of the vehicle was transferred on the name of the petitioner, as on the date of purchase of the car itself.

¶6

When the petitioner with an intention to sell the car in favour of the third party on 21.07.2022, has approached the respondent authorities for transfer of ownership of the car, the respondent authorities, took an objection for transfer on the

¶7

¶8

ground that the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Case, Vijayawada vide Crl.M.P.No.1495/2019 in Cr.No.06/RCA-ACBGNT/2018, dated 13.12.2019 has directed not to allow the said car to be transferred or alienated in favour of any 3^rd parties.

¶9

The respondent authorities also informed the petitioner that prior to date of his purchase, there is an ACB case registered on the first owner of the car. The specific case of the petitioner is that in the attachment order dated 13.12.2019, the ownership of the car was transferred in the name of the petitioner, as such, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 13.03.2023 to the RTO/ 3^rd respondent seeking transfer of ownership of the car in favour of the third party, which is pending for consideration.

¶10

In view of the same, inspite of going into the merits of this case, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the third respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 13.03.2023 made by the petitioner in accordance with law, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶11

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶15

Date : 17.03.2023 PSR/KBS

¶16

¶17

161

¶18

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.6722 of 2023

¶20

Date: 17.03.2023

¶21

PSR/KBS

Chintham /Chintala Satish Kumar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintham /Chintala Satish Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Tirumaleshwar Reddy S/o Bhaskar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Ramanjaneyulu, Vs The State of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary

R.Narasimha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nagothi Siva Kumari, Vs The Asst. General Manager

Y. Srinivasulu, Vs The Managing Director

K. Gunasagar Vs The Disciplinary Authority-cum-Asst. General Manager