Arveti Bhagya Jyothi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

“..to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the Proceedings of the 2nd respondents condition of furnish a Fixed Deposit Receipt FDR for Rs 4 90 00000 towards the value of the vehicle in favour of deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Kurnool for release of vehicle Maruthi Suzuki Brezza car bearing AP 21 BT 9009 seized in Cr No 519/2024 of SEB Station Kurnool under Section 7 r/w 8 b i A P Prohibition Act 1995 as illegal irregular irrational violative of provision of A.P Prohibition Act 1995 and offends articles14 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release my said vehicle upon furnishing necessary sureties if required there and pass..”

¶26

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Transport and perused the material available on record.

¶27

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the registered owner of a Maruti Suzuki Brezza car bearing registration number AP 21 BT 9009. On 18.11.2024, the vehicle was seized by the 4th respondent, and a crime

¶28

was registered against the petitioner's husband in Cr. No. 519/2024 of the

¶29

::3::

¶30

Special Enforcement Bureau, Kurnool, alleging that the said vehicle was used for the illegal possession and transportation of 12 beer bottles.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said vehicle is currently in police custody. Consequently, the petitioner filed a petition before the 2nd respondent seeking for the release of the vehicle. Pursuant to the petition, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 in Rc. No. B/53/2024, directing the petitioner to furnish a Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs. 4,90,000/- towards the value of the vehicle in favor of the 3rd respondent. He further submits that the vehicle remains in police custody, exposed to sun and rain, causing irreparable loss to the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶32

4. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in a decision reported in Saleem Tours and Travels v. Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary¹ , in my considered opinion, it is appropriate and reasonable to direct the Respondent Authorities to release the seized vehicle in favour of the Petitioner on imposing certain condition, to protect the interest of the Respondents, pending the enquiry.

¶33

1 2000(4) ALD 501 = 2000(4) ALT 468

¶34

::4::

¶35

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶36

(i) The respondents shall release the Maruti Suzuki Brezza car bearing registration number AP 21 BT 9009, seized on 18.11.2024, to the petitioner, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall furnish a Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs.1,50,000/-, along with the payment of the applicable compound fee as of today. The petitioner shall also produce a demand draft or receipt acknowledging the payment.

¶37

(ii) The Petitioner shall submit an undertaking to the effect that the subject vehicle will be produced as and when required for enquiry and that the same would not be alienated pending enquiry. No costs.

¶38

As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶39

_____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶40

Dt: 12.03.2025 klk

¶41

::5::

¶42

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶43

153