The Court dismissed a writ petition wherein the petitioner challenged the illegal seizure of his vehicle and a tax demand, noting he had concealed existing orders specifying his liability to the Government Pleader for Transport during the hearing.
Dismissal of the writ petition. No costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 12323 of 2005
Between:
G. Venkat Reddy, S/o. G. Bheem Reddy, R/o. 1-86, Kotakonda Village, Naidupeta Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
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 writ or direction preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the Seizure of the vehicles of the petitioner (Jeep) bearing No. AP 22 U 3972 on 24-8-2004 vide vehicle check report No. 364995 and also demand of Rs.54,810/- for release of vehicle as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release the vehicles in favour of the petitioner without any further delay.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SREENIVASA RAO RAVULAPATI
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner alleging that his vehicle was seized under Vehicle Check Report No.364995, dated 24.06.2005 and the vehicle was not released in spite of his repeated requests. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents, without passing any orders, made a demand for a sum of Rs.54,810/- towards tax and penalty. As the petitioner is not in a position to pay, he has come up with the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to release his vehicle.
Heard both sides.
At the time of hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Transport placed a copy of the show cause notice dated 15.04.2004 and also the final order passed by the Licensing Officer on 28.09.2004, under which, the tax liability as well as the penalty was specified and to that effect an order was passed directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.56,700/-. Concealing all these facts, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
20.06.2005
VGB
To
Hyderabad (OUT).
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging vehicle seizure and tax demand is maintainable when the petitioner concealed existing orders specifying liability.
G. Venkat Reddy
The Motor Vehicles Inspector, Mahabubnagar
The SHO, PS Narayanapet, Mahaboobnagar District
S. Ananda Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
