Allowed

Madhusudhan Cheruku, v. The Secretary

Telangana HC15 Jun 2012WP/17681/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that continued detention of a vehicle seized for overloading may cause depreciation and utility loss. It upheld the release of the vehicle, subject to depositing Rs.20,000, unloading excess weight, paying tax dues, and undertaking not to transport without a way bill, allowing the authorities to collect statutory penalties separately.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's vehicle declared to be released subject to deposit of Rs.20,000, unloading excess weight, payment of arrears, and giving an undertaking not to transport goods without a valid way bill.

Madhusudhan Cheruku, Vs The Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.17681 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle bearing No.AP29TA-8219 vide check report No.2642588 dated 12.06.2012, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶6

3. Petitioner claims to be the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP29TA-8219 and plying the same as goods vehicle with valid permit. It is stated that on 12.06.2012 when the vehicle was proceeding with load of sand, the 2^nd respondent seized the said vehicle vide check report No.2642588 dated 12.06.2012, as the same was found plying with overload. Petitioner approached the 1^st respondent-registering authority seeking release of the vehicle. It is stated that no action was taken by the 1^st respondent.

¶7

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even assuming without admitting that there is over load, the same is

¶8

compoundable offence under Section 194 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) and the authority is entitled to collect compounding fee of Rs.1000/- for each excess ton, and hence the seizure of the vehicle is illegal and arbitrary. He would further submit that in similar circumstances, this Court has ordered release of vehicles, subject to certain conditions, including deposit of minimum amounts, and copies of several such orders, including one dated 19.04.2012 in W.P.Nos.11446 of 2012 and batch are placed on record.

¶9

5. Learned Government Pleader for Transport does not dispute the fact of such orders earlier passed by this Court, directing release of the seized vehicles, subject to certain conditions, and he would submit that the petitioner may be directed to pay arrears of tax and other dues, if any, besides imposing stringent conditions for release of the vehicle.

¶10

6. In the circumstances, it is considered that continued detention of the vehicle may not be necessary and on the other hand it may result in deterioration and depreciation in its value and utility. Petitioner’s vehicle bearing No.AP29TA-8219 is directed to be released, subject to condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with the respondents, besides unloading the excess

¶11

weight and also paying arrears of tax and other dues, if any, and giving an undertaking not to transport the goods without valid way bill. It is open to the respondents to collect the necessary penal amounts, in terms of Section 194(1) of the Act, besides taking such penal action, as permissible under law.

¶12

7. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, filed in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

_______________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J

¶14

15^th June,2012 Note: Furnish C.C. of order today B/o Tsy

Madhusudhan Cheruku, v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhusudhan Cheruku, v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdullah Khan, Vs Deputy Transport Commissioner/ Secretary

Kalidindi Narasimha Raju, Vs The Superintendent Engineer

Mrs. Ahmedi Begum, Vs The Regional Passport Officer

G Narayana Goud, Vs The Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector

Balarao Madhav Vs The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Konda Jangaiah, Vs The Secretary