Allowed

R.Janaki Rao, v. The Secretary

Telangana HC8 Jun 2005WP/11872/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the detention of his vehicle and prayed for its release. The Single Judge dismissed the petition at the admission stage, directing the petitioner to file an application for release as per Rule 48 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and to deposit Rs. 2,000 with an undertaking not to alienate the vehicle during the pendency of the enquiry.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to make an application for release under Rule 48 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and deposit Rs. 2,000 with an undertaking not to alie

R.Janaki Rao, Vs The Secretary — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 11872 of 2005

¶7

Between:

¶8

R.Janaki Rao, S/o.Sriramulu, Dharmapuram Village, Vajrapukotturu Mandal, Srikakulam Dist.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority,

¶12

Srikakulam, Srikulam District.

¶13

2 The Circle Inspector of police, Tekkali, Srikakulam District.

¶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 may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents in seizing and continuing detention of the petitioner's vehicle (Trukkar) bearing No.AP30T-4473 under the check report, dt.14-5-2005 as illegal, arbitrary and further direct the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle (Trukkar) forthwith pending enquiry before the last respondent herein. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.A.RAZAK

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT

¶17

The Court at the admission stage made the following:

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondents in seizing his vehicle bearing No.AP30T-4473 and not releasing the same.

¶20

It is stated that the respondents seized the petitioner’s vehicle under Vehicle Check Report dated 14.05.2005 at 18.30 hrs on certain alleged irregularities specified therein. It is also stated that the petitioner approached the respondents for release of his vehicle, but the respondents did not release the vehicle.

¶21

However, the petitioner is not in a position to specify the date or show any copy of the application made by him for release of the vehicle as contemplated under Rule 48 of the A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. In the absence of any such application seeking release of the vehicle, the respondents are not obligated to do so.

¶22

Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make an application as contemplated under Rule 48 of the A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. If any such application is made by the petitioner, the respondents are directed to dispose of the said application and release the vehicle on deposit of

¶23

Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) with a further undertaking that the petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle during the pendency of the enquiry. It is also made clear that the release of the vehicle and deposit made by the petitioner as directed hereinabove shall be subject to the outcome of the enquiry and orders that are going to be passed by the first respondent.

¶24

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

08.06.2005

VGB

1 The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority,

¶29

Srikakulam, Srikulam District.

¶30

2 The Circle Inspector of police, Tekkali, Srikakulam District.

¶31

3 2CCs to the Government Pleader for Transport, High Court Buildings,

¶32

Hyderabad (OUT)

¶33

4 2CD copies.

R.Janaki Rao, v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Janaki Rao, v. The Secretary

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.V. Ramana Reddy, Vs M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

M. Bharath Bhushan, Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

L.v.S.Narayana E-501680, Typist Vs The Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director

Chirala Bapaiah Panthulu, Vs The Government of A.P.

M.L. Ravi Kumar, Vs Special Tahsildar

M/s.Sai Ganapathi Sc and Bc Labour Contract Co.op. Vs The Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings (Randb) Division