Dismissed

B. Phanidra Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC14 Jul 2009WP/13446/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the seizure and detention of his vehicle as arbitrary and violative of Fundamental Rights and statutory provisions. The seizure was subsequently ordered released by the concerned authority, rendering the petition infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous as the vehicle had already been released by the concerned authority.

B. Phanidra Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13446 of 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

B. Phanidra Reddy S/o. B. Sanjeeva Reddy R/o. Flat No.301. Royal Pearl Apartments, 2nd Cross 3rd Main Baraswadi, Bangalore.

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Transport Department , Rep. by its Deputy Transport Commissioner, Vijayawada.

¶11

2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Transport Department , Rep. by its Assistant

¶12

Motor Vehicles Inspector, Garikapadu C.P. Krishna District.

¶13

3 Mr. P. Sheshagiri Rao

¶14

Aswsistant Motor Vehicles Inspector Garikapadu C.P. Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

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 to issue an appropria te writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents 2 and 3 in seizing detaining and consequential action of the 1st respondent in not releasing the vehicle bearing Registration No. KA 53 P- 5555 (VERNA 1.5 CRDI Sedon Motor Vehicle) as arbitrary, illegal, failure to exercise power, violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 (1)(d) contray to Article 265 of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of the procedure contemplated under section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and Section 8 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and consequently set aside the seizer order dt. 236-2009 as without power and release the said vehicle and pass

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.V.R.RUDRA PRASAD

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR TRANSPORT

¶18

The Court made the following :

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶20

W.P.No. 13446 of 2009

¶21

14-07-2009

¶22

Oral Order:

¶23

The seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No.KA53 P-5555 (VERNA 1.5 CRDI Sedon Motor Vehicle) is the grievance in this writ petition. By the order dated 10-07-2009 of the RTA Krishna District, Vijayawada, the vehicle has been released. As such, the substantive grievance in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed as ‘infructuous’. No costs.

¶24

____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 14-07-2009 Pvks

B. Phanidra Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Phanidra Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Salapu Ramana Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

N. Kamalamani Vs The District Collector

V.Govinda Rao Vs Government of A.P.

Smt. Samburu Aruna Vs The tahsildar

Syed Akber Hussain Vs Haleema Begum , Ameena Begum

M/s. Maruthi Constructions, Vs The Prl., Secretary to Government Transport, Randb, Dept.