Allowed

K. Venugopal Rao v. The Regional Transport Authority

Telangana HC30 Dec 2010WP/33479/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the illegal seizure of a granite hauler. The High Court directed the authorities to release the vehicle upon payment of Rs.5,000 and execution of an undertaking, while allowing the overloading enquiry to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to release the seized vehicle upon payment of Rs.5,000 and execution of an undertaking.

K. Venugopal Rao Vs The Regional Transport Authority — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.33479 of 2010

¶3

Date: December 30, 2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

K. Venugopal Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Aged about 32 years, R/o.5^th Lane, Gandhi Nagar, Chimakurthy (P&M), Prakasam District

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Regional Transport Authority, Rep. by its Secretary, Ongole, Prakasam District, and another

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Order:

¶11

This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent-Motor Vehicle Inspector,

¶12

Narasaraopet, Guntur District, in seizing the vehicle of the petitioner bearing No. AP-27-Y-3499 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to release the said vehicle.

¶13

The second respondent-Motor Vehicle Inspector, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, stopped the vehicle in question on 27-12-2010 while it was proceeding towards Khammam from Chimakurthy with a load of granite blocks on the ground that it was overloaded by 5490 kgs. and seized the same.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Transport.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle is not overloaded; in spite of the same it was seized illegally.

¶16

Whether the vehicle in question was overloaded or not is a matter which is in the domain of the respondents and the same has to be determined in the enquiry by the competent authority.

¶17

In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing No.AP-27-Y-3499 subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) by the petitioner and also executing an undertaking that he will not alienate the vehicle or create any third party interests thereon

¶18

and will produce the same as and when required by the authorities. However, the enquiry may go on. Needless to mention that the aforesaid amount to be deposited by the petitioner will be subject to final orders to be passed by the competent authority on conclusion of enquiry.

¶19

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶20

___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) December 30, 2010 MRR

K. Venugopal Rao v. The Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Venugopal Rao v. The Regional Transport Authority

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

Reddeboina Saidulu, Vs The District Collector

C. Mahender Reddy Vs The District Collector

Akkineni Anjaneyulu, Vs The Primary Coop.Marketing Society

K. Harinatha reddy Vs The Commissioner (Appeals)

Sk. Bi Bi, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, represented by its

Akkena Simhachalam Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Appellate Authority