Disposed

Tasneem Khanam v. The Regional Transport Authority

Telangana HC4 Aug 2004WP/13762/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted interim custody of a seized lorry to the petitioner on deposit of Rs. 10,000, subject to conditions preventing transfer or modification, while the main inquiry regarding overloading remained pending before the Regional Transport Authority.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release the seized vehicle for interim custody on deposit of Rs. 10,000 and subject to specified conditions.

Tasneem Khanam Vs The Regional Transport Authority — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 13762 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

Tasneem Khanam W/o. Sajeed Khan 4-7-23, Panjesha Street, Adilabad District.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Regional Transport Authority, Adilabad, District Adilabad.

¶12

2 Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, ( Enforcement) Warangal,

¶13

District Warangal.

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order, or direction, or issue an appropriate writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to release the seized vehicle of petitioner herein i.e., Heavy Goods Vehicle (Lorry) bearing registration No. AP 11 W 6143 which was seized by the respondent No.2 herein under Vehicle Check Report No. 162756, dt. 30.7.2004, and declare the action of the respondents herein regarding the seizure of said vehicle is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. and against the mandatory provisions of M.V. Act, and its Rules, .

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.CHANDRASEKHAR

¶17

Counsel for Respondents : GP FOR TRANSPORT

¶18

The Court at the stage of admission made the following:

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing No. A.P. 11 W 6143 which was seized by the 2^nd respondent on 30-07-2004 on the ground that there was over load by 16,000 Kgs. than the permitted load and issued a check report on the same day. The petitioner appears to have made a representation on the same day to the 1^st respondent contending that there was no over load and requested to release the vehicle. The matter is pending with the 1^st respondent.

¶21

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner represents that since the vehicle is kept idle exposing to light and rain, it is likely to be damaged. Therefore, requested to release the vehicle for interim custody.

¶22

3. Since the enquiry is pending before the 1^st respondent, the vehicle in question is directed to be released to the petitioner for interim custody on condition of his depositing Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) with the 1^st respondent and on such deposit the respondents shall release the vehicle for interim custody of the petitioner on further conditions that he shall not transfer the vehicle or sell the vehicle in favour of others or shall not change or modify the vehicle during the period of interim custody. The petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the 1^st respondent and shall participate in the enquiry by producing the available documents before the 1^st respondent regarding the check report issued by the 2^nd

¶23

respondent.

¶24

4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at the admission stage. No order as to costs.

¶25

Dr. G.YETHIRAJULU, J

¶26

Date : 04-08-2004.

¶27

NOTE:

¶28

Wire at party’s cost.

¶29

B/o

¶30

Chvn/DSR

¶31

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Regional Transport Authority, Adilabad, District Adilabad.

¶36

2 The Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, ( Enforcement) Warangal,

¶37

District Warangal.

¶38

3, Two C.Cs. to the G.P. for Transport, High Court Buildings,

¶39

Hyderabad(OUT).

¶40

4. Two C.Ds.

Tasneem Khanam v. The Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tasneem Khanam v. The Regional Transport Authority

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

M/S Andhra Pradesh Foods Rep.by M.D. R. Vs Sery. Labour Dept. Hyd.

E.Aruna, Vs The Employment Officer, District

The Gangaputra Society, Vs The Assistant Director of Fisheries

Paladugu Siva Nageswara Rao S/o Subba Rao Vs The Director, (Vands) Apsrtc, Hyderabad

T.Appa Rao Vs The Commissioner and Director of Sugar and Cane

R. Anjaiah S/o R. Krishnaiah Vs The Vice Chairman and Managing Director