Disposed

Sri. Sunil Kumar, v. The Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary

Telangana HC7 Aug 2012WP/24319/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle for interim custody upon deposit of Rs. 20,000 and any taxes due, noting that the vehicle is liable for seizure but not confiscation for the alleged offence. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to give vehicle to petitioner for interim custody upon deposit of Rs. 20,000 and taxes.

Sri. Sunil Kumar, Vs The Deputy Transport… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.24319 OF 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1^st respondent in not releasing the vehicle bearing No.AP/01T-5553 which was seized under vehicle check report dated 22.6.2012 by the 2^nd respondent as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, direct respondent No.1 to release the vehicle in question.

¶5

2. The petitioner’s vehicle was seized by respondent No.1 on 21.06.2012 for violation of provisions under Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’). After completion of investigation, respondent No.1 filed charge sheet.

¶6

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner there were no taxes due to the Government and only allegation is that the vehicle in question was carrying passengers over and above the sanctioned permit.

¶7

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport, appearing for the respondents, stated that respondent No.2 has no authority to release the vehicle in question in view of the fact that charge sheet has already been filed.

¶8

5. As the petitioner has violated certain provisions under the Act, respondent No.1 has rightly seized the vehicle in question. The vehicle is in the custody of respondent No.1. If the vehicle is exposed to sun and air and is kept idle, it would be damaged. Even otherwise, for the offence under Section 192-A of the Act, if the petitioner is found guilty of the offence with which he was charge, the vehicle in question is not liable for confiscation. But, at the same time, the vehicle in question is a case property. Therefore, the respondents are directed to

¶9

give the vehicle in question to the petitioner for interim custody subject to depositing of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) and taxes, if any, due. The amount deposited by the petitioner is subject to result of the criminal case.

¶10

6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

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

¶12

_______________ K.C.BHANU, J

¶13

August 07, 2012 Note: Issue CC by tomorrow (B/o) Gk

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶15

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO.24319 OF 2012

¶17

Date:0708.2012

Sri. Sunil Kumar, v. The Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sunil Kumar, v. The Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary

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

Smt. K.H. Florence Lidy, Vs The Station House Officer

K.V.S. Rama Raju Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pittala Narayana Goud Vs The Assistant Director

Talakokkula Shankar Ramchandram, Vs The Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary

D. Siva Prasad Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Y.Kishore Babu Vs Sri A.P. Choudhary