Allowed

P. Dasarath v. The Secretary

Telangana HC10 Jun 2005WP/12227/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the seizure of his vehicle by Transport Authorities as illegal and violative of constitutional rights. The Court declined to examine the merits, noting the issue was covered by a binding Division Bench judgment, and directed the authorities to release the vehicle within three days upon deposit of money and an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to release the seized vehicle to the petitioner within three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on payment of Rs.500/- and tax, if any, by the petition

P. Dasarath Vs The Secretary — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12227 of 2005

¶7

Between:

¶8

P. Dasarath S/o. Nagaiah

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Central Zone, Hyderabad. 2 The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad.(East)

¶12

.....RESPONDENTS

¶13

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, especially, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the seizure of the petitioner vehicle bearing No. AP 9U 9473 vide vehicle check report No. 676073 dt.7-2-2005 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to release the petitioner vehicle bearing No.AP 9U 9473 immediately. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT

¶14

The Court at the stage of admission made the following:

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondents in seizing the vehicle bearing No.AP 9U 9473 vide vehicle check report No.676073 dated 07-02-2005, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court.

¶17

2 . It is stated that the respondents have seized the vehicle for the alleged irregularities stated in the vehicle check report on 07-02-2005. The petitioner made an application on 03-06-2005 for release of the vehicle. But the respondents did not pass any orders, though they were under an obligation to release the vehicle immediately when it was sought for release by making an application as contemplated under Rule 448 (b) of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules.

¶18

3 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶19

4 . In view of the fact that the issue is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court, the respondents are directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner, within three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on payment of Rs.500/- and the tax, if any, due, and also on giving an undertaking that he shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle in question pending disposal of the enquiry as contemplated under Section 207 of the M.V. Act. The release of the vehicle and the deposit made by the petitioner shall be subject to the out come of the orders passed after conducting the enquiry.

¶20

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶21

S.ANANDA REDDY, J

¶22

10^th June, 2005

¶23

Note:

¶24

Furnish C.C. within three days. B/o. SKM

¶25

¶26

1 The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Central Zone,

¶27

Hyderabad. 2 The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad.(East) 3 Two C.Cs. to G.P. for Transport, High Court Buildings, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT)

¶28

4 Two CD copies

¶29

Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}

P. Dasarath v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Dasarath 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

Dr. D.S.R.S. Prakash, Vs The Registrar

Ch.Sathyanarayana, Vs The General Manager

J. Jiwakar Reddy, Vs The Warangal District Cooperative Central Bank Limited

K. Sudhakar, Vs The General Manager

Ch. Muthaiah, Vs The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Power-

G. Venkat Ramaiah, Vs the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau