Disposed¶29

Borusu Veerabhadra Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Feb 2026WP/4388/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vehicle seizure writ; tractor AP 05 EN 1895 with 1100 coconuts; writ of mandamus; Article 226; BNSS 2023; Articles 14, 21, 300A; Crime No. 557 of 2026 under investigation; O.S. No. 32 of 2014 civil suit pending; interim custody application before jurisdictional Magistrate; disposed of, no costs; Andhra Pradesh HC Amaravati; Dr Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao; petitioners Borusu Veerabhadra Rao and Others.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate by filing an appropriate application seeking interim custody of the seized vehicle; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed. ¶29

Borusu Veerabhadra Rao Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the seizure by the 4th respondent, at the instance of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, of the petitioners' tractor (AP 05 EN 1895) and trailer loaded with 1100 coconuts without assigning any valid reason is illegal, irrational, irregular and violative of BNSS 2023 and Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution. +1 more

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Considering the facts and circumstances and recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate by filing an appropriate application seeking interim custody of the vehicle; there shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

Key takeaways

As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 4388 of 2026 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Dr Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, 23.02.2026): Filed under Article 226 by Borusu Veerabhadra Rao and others seeking a writ of mandamus declaring illegal the police seizure of their Mahindra Tractor Swaraj 742 EE (AP 05 EN 1895) and trailer carrying 1100 coconuts, allegedly without valid reason and contrary to BNSS 2023 and Articles 14, 21 and 300A, and directing release of the vehicle. The Assistant Government Pleader submitted that Crime No. 557 of 2026 had been registered on a complaint by respondent No. 5 and was under investigation; civil suits (O.S. No. 32 of 2014) were pending between the parties. Disposing of the petition, the Court granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for interim custody of the vehicle, with no order as to costs.

[3521]

APHC010076192026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 4388/2026

¶10

Between:

¶11

Borusu Veerabhadra Rao and Others

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶17

1.PALA KARTHI KIRAN

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶19

1.GP FOR HOME

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶21

The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶22

India seeking the following relief:-

¶23

“…to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of Respondents more particularly the 4th Respondent at instance of Respondent Nos 5 and 6 in illegally seizing Petitioners Mahindra Tractor Swaraj 742 EE bearing its Vehicle No AP 05 EN 1895 and its Trailor having been loaded with 1100 Coconuts without assigning any valid reason as illegal irrational irregular and violative of provisions of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhitha in short BNSS 2023 and Rules framed there under and offends Articles 14 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents specifically the 4th Respondent to forthwith release/hand over said vehicle to the Petitioners and pass such other order(s)…”

¶24

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant

¶26

Government Pleader for Home.

¶27

Sri Pala Karthi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioner is the owner of the tractor bearing No. AP 05 EN 1895 and its trailer. The said tractor was loaded with coconuts and, without assigning any valid reason, the tractor along with the coconuts was seized by the police.

¶28

Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that respondent No. 5 lodged a complaint against the petitioners with respondent No. 4. Based on the said complaint, respondent No. 4 registered a case in Crime No. 557 of 2026 and the same is under investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that civil suits are pending between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents vide O.S. No. 32 of 2014.

¶29

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate by filing an appropriate application seeking interim custody of the vehicle. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

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

¶31

________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

Date: 23.02.2026 KMS

146

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶36