Disposed

Essack, v. The Superintendant Prohibition and Excise

Telangana HC14 Mar 2012WP/6211/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition seeking mandamus to declare the seizure of the petitioner's vehicle illegal due to alleged transportation of illicit liquor, the Court held that legality could not be decided pending the enquiry. It directed issuance of a representation for consideration of vehicle release.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for release of the vehicle within three weeks and pass appropriate orders.

Essack, Vs The Superintendant Prohibition and Excise — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6211 of 2012

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleaders for Prohibition and Excise and Home appearing for respondents 1 and 2, and respondents 3 and 4, respectively.

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seizing the petitioner’s vehicle, Hero Honda Splendor +, bearing No.AP03 AD 5557 in connection with Crime No.542/201011 registered on the file of Prohibition and Excise Station, Chittoor Urban, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents to release the vehicle in question to him.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioner that he is a resident of Papisettivaripalli Village, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District and is in private employment. It is stated that when he was proceeding on the vehicle in question towards Vasanthapuram and crossed Chittoor village, the excise officials have seized the vehicle in question on the ground that it was used for transportation of I.D.liquor. Stating that the said allegation is false, he seeks declaration that the seizure itself is illegal.

¶6

A perusal of the copy of the First Information Report in the aforesaid crime indicates that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he was transporting one gunny bag containing the sachets of I.D. liquor. Whether the vehicle in question was used for transportation of I.D. liquor or not is a matter for enquiry by the respondents. Even before conclusion of enquiry by the competent authority i.e. fourth respondent - Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor, Chittoor District, this Court cannot declare that the seizure of vehicle in question is illegal. However, as it is brought to the notice of this Court that the vehicle in question was seized as early as on 08.01.2011 and is being exposed to natural calamities, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to submit a representation to the fourth respondent for release of the vehicle in question. Further, there shall be a direction to the fourth respondent to consider such representation and to pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt thereof.

¶7

Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶8

In view of disposal of the Writ Petition,

¶9

WPMP.No.7891 of 2012 also stands disposed of.

¶10

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶11

14^th MARCH, 2012.

¶12

kvni

Essack, v. The Superintendant Prohibition and Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Essack, v. The Superintendant Prohibition and Excise

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

Yanamadala Anil Chand , Chandu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Koki Srinivasa Reddy Vs The Government of Ap., rep.byits Secretary,Home

Killada (Vanapalli) Susmitha Vs The Police Commissioner

P.Barkath Khan Vs The Superintendent of Police,Anantapur

Meka Ram Reddy Vs The Commissioner of Police

Battula Samuel Vs B.Ramulu