Dismissed

A.P. State Financial Corporation, v. State of A.P.

Telangana HC3 Oct 2007WP/27627/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions concerning the retention of a seized vehicle. It held that the Divisional Forest Officer could order confiscation without APSFC as a party. However, since no party exhausted the statutory right of appeal against the confiscation order before approaching this court, both petitions were dismissed as premature.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions were dismissed with no costs awarded.

A.P. State Financial Corporation, Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA

¶3

Writ Petition Nos.27627 of 1996 & 6648 of 2001

¶4

Dated: 03-10-2007

¶5

W.P.No.27627 of 1996:

¶6

Between: Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, rep. by its Branch Manager, having its Branch Office at 6-2-107, Jammibanda Road, Behind Z.P. Quarters, Khammam – 507 002.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

and

¶9

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Secretary, Forests, Forest Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 2 others.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

W.P.No.6648 of 2001:

¶12

Between: N. Srinivasa Rao, s/o Mysayya, r/o 3-8-181, Zaheerpura, Khammam.

¶13

... Petitioner

¶14

and

¶15

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Secretary, Forests, Forest Department, Secretariat Buildings,

¶16

Hyderabad and 2 others.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

COMMON ORDER:

¶19

As the point involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, these writ petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order.

¶20

2. The Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Khammam (for short, ‘APSFC’), rep. by its Branch Manager filed W.P.No.27627 of 1996 seeking mandamus to direct second respondent – Divisional Forest Officer to handover the vehicle bearing No. AP 20T-478, which was hypothecated to it by the owner of the vehicle – one N. Srinivasa Rao,

¶21

the third respondent to it, so as to enable them to initiate action for recovery of arrears payable to it under the provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act. Whereas, the said owner filed W.P.No.6648 of 2001 seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the second respondent in not releasing the said vehicle, which was seized on 26-05-1993,

¶22

as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the second respondent to release the vehicle.

¶23

3. Brief facts are that on 25-05-1993 the vehicle in question while transporting teakwood was intercepted and the teakwood along with the vehicle was seized on the ground that the said transfer of teakwood is without proper documentation. Thereafter, the second respondent after holding an enquiry passed an order in the form of show-cause notice on 09-02-1994 calling upon the owner of the vehicle to show-cause as to why teakwood together with the Van and Motor Cycle should not be confiscated to the Government as per law.

¶24

4. Questioning the said order, in my considered view a right of

¶25

appeal is provided for under the Statute but the owner of the vehicle without exhausting the said remedy of appeal, approached this Court and filed the writ petition. No doubt, the APSFC is not a party before the second respondent – Divisional Forest Officer, but it is not within the knowledge of APSFC that an order of confiscation was made. If really APSFC has no knowledge about the order of confiscation made by the second respondent, it would not have filed the writ petition questioning the order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer. Having knowledge about the order of confiscation passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, the APSFC i.e. the petitioner in W.P.No.27627 of 1996 should have approached the District Judge and file an appeal, as it has also not exhausted the said remedy of appeal. On this ground alone, this Court is of the view that both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶26

5. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.

¶27

_______________________________ JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA

¶28

Dt.03-10-2007 GLV

A.P. State Financial Corporation, v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.P. State Financial Corporation, v. State of A.P.

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

B.Shafiulla Vs The State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Girish Lalwani, Vs Govt. of A.P.

M/s. Lals rep. by its Proprietor Meena L. Lalwani, Vs Government of a.P., rep. by its Secretry

K.Venkateswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Venepally Venkateshwar Rao, Vs The District Collector

L.Satyanarayana Vs The Executive Engineer