Disposed

Rachuri Srinivasulu, v. The Joint Collector

Telangana HC4 Dec 2012WP/37344/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the respondents to release the petitioner's seized vehicle upon furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs. 50,000, noting the failure to issue notice under Section 6B or pass orders on the representation filed within two weeks of seizure.

What did the court decide?

Release of seized vehicle to the petitioner on furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs. 50,000, pending final orders in confiscation proceedings.

Rachuri Srinivasulu, Vs The Joint… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.37344 OF 2012

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction by way of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not passing any order on the representation, dated 20.11.2012, filed by the petitioner for release of TATA 207 Zypsy bearing No. AP 27 Y 7415, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents to release the said vehicle to the petitioner on personal security or on nominal bank guarantee.

¶5

The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP 27 Y 7415, which was purchased by obtaining finance from the Cholamandalam DBS Finance Limited, Nellore, by entering into a hire purchase agreement. It is stated that he is running the vehicle on hire basis and paying the installments from the income derived from hire charges.

¶6

On 15.11.2012, the vehicle was seized by the respondents alleging that the said vehicle has undertaken transportation of 30 Quintals of rice, which is meant for Public Distribution System and as such, the transportation itself is illegal.

¶7

In this Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the Driver of the vehicle, without knowing that the rice, which was being loaded, is meant for Public Distribution System, accepted transportation of the same. It is stated that the bags were also not carrying clear marks to show that the said rice is meant for Public

¶8

Distribution System. It is further stated that after seizing the vehicle, no steps are taken by initiating proceedings for confiscation and further, in spite of filing a representation, dated 20.11.2012, for release of the vehicle, no orders have been passed.

¶9

With regard to the allegations made against the petitioner, it is a matter for enquiry after initiating proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’). The correctness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be gone into at this stage. But, at the same time, having seized the vehicle on 15.11.2012, there is no reason for not initiating proceedings under Section 6A of the Act. It is also to be noticed that though the petitioner filed a representation on 20.11.2012, so far no orders have been passed by the respondents. When the vehicle is seized on the allegation of violation of Control Order framed under the Act, it is expected that steps are taken immediately and the seized vehicle should not be kept in the custody of the respondents by exposing the same to natural calamities.

¶10

As it is the case of the petitioner that after seizure, no notice is issued under Section 6B of the Act and further, he has purchased the vehicle on hire purchase basis by taking finance from Cholamandalam DBS Finance Limited, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondents to release the vehicle to the petitioner on furnishing bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). The petitioner shall not alienate or transfer the vehicle till appropriate final orders are passed in the 6A proceedings. The bank guarantee to be furnished by the petitioner shall be subject to the final orders to be passed in the confiscation proceedings.

¶11

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. No costs.

¶12

________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶13

December 04, 2012 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. B/o.MD

¶14

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.37344 OF 2012

¶16

December 04, 2012

¶17

Rachuri Srinivasulu, v. The Joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rachuri Srinivasulu, v. The Joint Collector

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

Smt. Batchali Varalakshmi Vs Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited

Singareni Collieries Sc and St Employees Welfare Association, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.Jwala Narasimham Vs The District Registrar

Jonnabhatla Anjaneyulu, Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc Depot

Smt. Ghanta Radha, Vs The Deputy Registrar /

The Jawahar Nagar Land - Cooperative Colonization Society, Vs The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of