Allowed

Satti Subba Reddy v. The Collector, Visakhapatnam District

Telangana HC8 Dec 2010WP/30833/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court declined to render conclusive findings on the legality of proceedings pending before the respondent. Instead, it directed the release of the petitioner's lorry tanker subject to furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,75,000/- being half the value of seized Naphthalene, conditional on the outcome of pending Section 6-A proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed challenging the mediated report and memo is allowed. The petitioner's transportation vehicle is directed to be released subject to furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,75,000/-

Satti Subba Reddy Vs The Collector, Visakhapatnam District — Telangana HC (2010) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No :30833 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the mediators’ report dated 4.11.2010 and consequential memo dated 29.11.2010 of respondent No.1 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

I have heard Sri B. Devanand, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶6

The petitioner is the owner of lorry tanker bearing No. AP 05-U-2211. The said tanker was allegedly seized along with another tanker from which certain quantity of Naphthalene was being decanted. The mediators’ report dated 4.11.2010 alleged that the tanker belonging to the petitioner was kept ready for transporting the alleged illegally decanted oil from the other tanker. Proceedings under Section 6-A were initiated on the basis of the mediators’ report. The petitioner approached respondent No.1 with an application for release of the lorry tanker. By memo dated 29.11.2010, respondent No.1 directed the release of the tanker to the petitioner subject to his furnishing bank guarantee for Rs.3,50,000/-, which obviously represents the value of the Naphthalene, which was being found decanted from the other tanker.

¶7

At the hearing, Sri B. Devanand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as no Naphthalene was found in the lorry tanker belonging to the petitioner, the very initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) is illegal. He has also submitted that even if it is found that the tanker of his client was found at the site, in the absence of any evidence of loading of the Naphthalene into the petitioner’s tanker, it is not liable for confiscation.

¶8

Inasmuch as proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are pending, it is not appropriate for this Court to render conclusive findings on the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The fact, however, remains that as there is no allegation that Naphthalene, which was de-canted from the other tanker was being loaded into the petitioner’s tanker, in the absence of such allegation, I find it just and reasonable that the tanker bearing Registration No. AP 05 U 2211 shall be released to the petitioner subject to his furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees

¶9

One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand Only) being half of the value of the seized Naphthalene. The furnishing of bank guarantee by the petitioner shall be subject to the result of the proceedings under Section 6-A, pending before respondent No.1.

¶10

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to dismissal of the main petition, W.P.M.P. No.39231 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶11

__________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J

¶12

DATE: 8^th December, 2010 Note: Communicate the operative portion of the order by Wire at part’s costs. B/o pnb

Satti Subba Reddy v. The Collector, Visakhapatnam District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satti Subba Reddy v. The Collector, Visakhapatnam District

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

Kondamudi Benerjee Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer and 2 Others

A. Bharath Kumar Vs The District Collector

Hanmanthu Vs TheChief Executive Officer

B.Ramulamma Vs The District Collector

G.Ramamurthy Vs The Tahsildar

V. Pandaiah, Vs The JOint Collector, (Cs) Ii, Ranga Reddy District