Dismissed
Syam Sunder Agarwaql S/o Badri Narayan Agarwal v. Governmetn of a.P., rep by Prinicpal
Telangana HCWP/15555/2005
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO :…
What the court decided
AI extract
MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO :…
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.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 15555 of 2005
Dated: 13.09.2005
Between:
Syam Sunder Agarwaql S/o Badri Narayan Agarwal R/o 15-9-466/26 Mahaboobnagar Gunj Hyderabad.
..... PETITIONER
AND
Government of A.P., rep by Principal Secretary for Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
… RESPONDENTS
ORDER:
The petitioner is the owner of Maruti Car bearing Registration No. AP 9F 1244 with Engine No.866743 vide Chasis No.579433. When he has parked the car inside the Ramdayal Ghansiram Building on 03.03.2004 about 3.00 P.M., the fourth
respondent seized it. Complaining the same, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.58 of 2005 on the file of the Court of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, now called as IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad, wherein a direction has been given to the fourth respondent to release the vehicle on execution of a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- by the petitioner. However, the fourth respondent has not implemented the said orders and on the other hand, the respondents are using the vehicle for their personal purpose. Hence this writ petition.
A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent stating that the fourth respondent never refused to release the vehicle at any point of time, and as a matter of fact, the respondents issued a notice to the petitioner on 21.07.2005 informing him to come to the police station and take the vehicle immediately.
At the outset, this Court cannot be an executing court for a Magistrate Court so as to implement the orders of the Magistrate. If the order of the Magistrate Court is not implemented, the remedy is otherwise. As the respondents are disputing the allegations in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the disputed questions of fact cannot be determined and decided in this writ petition.
Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
13.09.2005
sh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this Court can act as an executing court to implement orders of a Magistrate Court.
Syam Sunder Agarwal
Government of A.P.
Principal Secretary for Home
XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad
K. C. Bhanu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court