Dismissed

Pittala Narayana Goud v. The Assistant Director

Telangana HC6 Aug 2012WP/23726/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the arbitrary seizure of a vehicle used for illegal sand transportation. Although reliance was placed on earlier decisions regarding interim custody, the Court held that prima facie evidence of illegal use without authority made the vehicle unfit for interim release, but noted the petitioner could still approach the competent authority for custo

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. No interim custody of the vehicle is granted. The petitioner may approach the concerned authority for interim custody.

Pittala Narayana Goud Vs The Assistant… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.23726 OF 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seizing the petitioner’s vehicle bearing No.AP-28-TC-3996 without any seizure report or check report, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to release the vehicle in question.

¶5

2. Case of the petitioner is that he was having goods vehicle permit to operate the same in the entire State of Andhra Pradesh; that the petitioner purchased the sand from the contractor by paying the amount; that when the petitioner was carrying the same respondent No.2 seized the vehicle in question and handed over the same to respondent No.1.

¶6

3. Heard.

¶7

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in W.P.No.31230 of 2011, dated 01.12.2011, wherein it is held that:

¶8

“The petitioner’s vehicle is reported to be involved for the second time in a similar offence and as such, the penalty as applicable to first time offenders cannot be believed in this case.”

¶9

5. He also relied on an unreported decision of this Court in W.P.No.9925 of 2012, dated 10.04.2012, wherein it is held that

¶10

“Though the vehicle involved in W.P.No.9955 of 2012 is stated to be involved for the second time in such violation, which may make it liable for confiscation under Rule 9-X (b) of the Rules, the proceedings

¶11

resulting in seizure should be taken to their logical conclusion by the competent authority or before the competent Criminal Court in view of the denial committal of any offence by the petitioners and subject to such final decision of the competent authority or the competent Criminal Court, it if the vehicles were to be kept unused and unattended in the custody of the second respondent, they will deteriorate in value and utility for the benefit of nobody.”

¶12

6. He also relied on unreported decision of this Court in W.P.No.7742 of 2012, wherein it is held that :

¶13

“While insofar as the second petitioner is concerned, even if the allegations are true in respect of his tractor and trailer, he will have to pay a penalty of Rs.5,000/- under the statutory rule, insofar as the first petitioner is concerned, if it was true that it was a case of second infraction, the vehicle may become liable for confiscation under Rule 9-X (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. But, the ultimate property orders that may be passed at the end of any criminal or other proceedings need not allow the tractor and trailer to deteriorate in value and utility in the meanwhile by their being placed in the custody of the police unused and unattended. Any deterioration of the value and utility of the vehicles will be for the benefit of nobody and to protect the rights and interests of both the parties, interim custody has to be considered in respect of the first petitioner also subject to payment of a higher sum towards penalty as is admittedly done in similar such cases by this Court.”

¶14

7. On instruction, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for respondent No.1 stated that the

¶15

vehicle in question was used for carrying sand illegally on earlier occasion; that knowing fully well, the petitioner was carrying the sand illegally and hence, there are no grounds to release the vehicle in question.

¶16

8. Basing on the above decisions, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that interim custody of the vehicle may be given to the petitioner.

¶17

9. No doubt, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was used for illegal transportation of sand on earlier occasion. At that point of time, the petitioner paid fine amount of Rs.35,000/- to the department. Having knowledge that the sand was illegally transporting in the vehicle, still the petitioner allowed the vehicle in question to carry the sand without there being any permit or any authority. Prima facie, from the grounds, the vehicle is being used for transportation of sand illegally without there being any authority. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case to grant interim custody of the vehicle in question to the petitioner.

¶18

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner in approaching the concerned authority for grant of interim custody under Section 9-X (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1966. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶20

AUGUST 06, 2012 YVL

¶21

K.C.BHANU, J

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO.23726 OF 2012

¶24

06.08.2012