Disposed

E. Ramakrishna, v. Regional Transport Officer and Secretary

Telangana HC2 Nov 2004WP/20099/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed for release of auto rickshaw seized for permit violation and alleged offences. Court disposed of petition at admission stage, directing vehicle release subject to tax payment, conditional on undertaking not to alienate the vehicle. No prejudice to pending enquiry rights.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued for immediate release of seized auto rickshaw upon payment of tax due and filing of undertaking not to alienate the vehicle.

E. Ramakrishna, Vs Regional Transport Officer and… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI

¶6

and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO : 20099 of 2004

¶8

Between:

¶9

E. Ramakrishna, S/o. E. Lachappa, R/o. D.No. 1-78, Ubicherla Village, Gooty Mandal, Anantapur District.

¶10

..... PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Regional Transport Officer & Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur, Anantapur District.

¶13

2 Station House Officer, Gooty Police Station, Gooty, Anantapur District.

¶14

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in seizing and detaining the Petitioner's Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration NO.AP.02/U.2168, pursuant to the Vehicle Check Report No.317147, dated 20-10-2004 of the 1st respondent, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents herein to release the said Auto Rickshaw to the Petitioner forthwith, by accepting the tax for the present quarter ending with 31-12-2004;

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VISWANATHAM

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR TRANSPORT

¶18

The Court at the stage of admission made the following :

¶19

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Bilal Nazki)

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at this stage.

¶21

It appears that the petitioner’s vehicle has been seized for violating the conditions of permit and for some other alleged offences. In the interest of justice, we dispose of this Writ Petition at this stage, directing release of vehicle subject to payment of tax due by the petitioner, without prejudice to his rights in the enquiry, and further subject to filing an undertaking to the effect that he shall not alienate or in any way encumber the vehicle.

¶22

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶23

(BILAL NAZKI,J)

¶24

DATED:02-11-2004

¶25

(S.ANANDA REDDY,J)

¶26

Note: Operative portion by wire at party’s costs. (B/o.)

¶27

¶28

¶29

1 The Regional Transport Officer & Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2 The Station House Officer, Gooty Police Station, Gooty, Anantapur District.

¶30

3 Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader forTransport, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶31

4 Two C.D.copies.

E. Ramakrishna, v. Regional Transport Officer and Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E. Ramakrishna, v. Regional Transport Officer and Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The E.O. Ttd Tirupathi Vs Prl Secty Muncipal Admn Hyderabad and 2 Ot

M/s.Sri Vigneswara Raw and Boiled Rice Mill, Vs The Asst. Commissioner (Ct)

M/s. S.V.R.R Hospital Diet Canteen, Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

M/s. Klen and Marshalls Manufacturers and Expaorts (P) Ltd. Vs The Additional Commisioner of Taxes

M/s. Rajam Aluminum Metal Products Vs Additional Commissioner (Ct) Legal (Fac)

M/s.Prasad Media Corporation Ltd., Vs Commercial Tax officer