Allowed

M. Appala Naidu v. The Project Director

Telangana HC30 Apr 2013WP/13621/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus to declare the illegal and arbitrary seizure of the petitioner's lorry without following due procedure. The Court directed the respondent to report the seizure to the Magistrate and release the vehicle upon submission of ownership proof and a bond, and disposed of a subsequent interim relief petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The respondent No.2 directed to immediately send a report to the jurisdictional Magistrate on the seizure and release the seized vehicle to the petitioner subject to filing proof of ownership document

M. Appala Naidu Vs The Project… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶2

Writ Petition No.13621 of 2013

Dt: 30.04.2013

Between:

M.Appala Naidu

…Petitioner

And

The Project Director, District Water Management Agency, (DWMA), Visakhapatnam District and 3 others

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Naveen Kumar

¶11

Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.2 & 3: GP for Revenue

¶12

Counsel for respondent No.4: GP for Home

¶13

The Court made the following:

¶14

Order:

¶15

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in seizing the petitioner’s lorry bearing registration No.AP 31 TU 3168 without following the due procedure under law, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to release the seized vehicle.

¶16

At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the parties stated that so far no seizure report has been sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate by respondent No.2 even though the seized vehicle is handed over to Anakapalli Rural Police Station, Visakhapatnam for safe custody. The petitioner has, however, made an application on 24.04.2013 to respondent No.2, for release of the seized vehicle. The grievance of the petitioner is that this application has not been considered.

¶17

Under Rule-9-Q of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’), notified by G.O.Ms.No.154, dated 15.11.2012, the Officer who seized the machinery/vehicles, after making a report of such seizure to the Magistrate, shall release the same on execution of a bond by the owner thereof for production of the machinery/vehicles so released as and when directed

¶18

by the Magistrate concerned.

¶19

In the light of the provisions of Rule 9-Q of the Rules, respondent No.2 is directed to immediately send a report to the jurisdictional magistrate on the seizure. After such report, respondent No.2 is directed to release the seized vehicle to the petitioner subject to his filing proof of ownership documents and also executing a bond that he will produce the said vehicle as and when directed by the Magistrate concerned.

¶20

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶21

As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No.16691 of 2013, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶22

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)

¶23

Dt: 30^th April, 2013 lur/gra

M. Appala Naidu v. The Project Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Appala Naidu v. The Project Director

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

M.Jaipal Reddy Vs The Commissioner for Cooperative and Registrar

A.M.Naveen, S/o A.M. Munirathnam Mudaliar Vs State Transport Authority

Thati Prameela Vs The District Collector (Panchayat Wing)

S.G.Shankara Babu Vs a.Venkata Rami Reddy

Sree Laxminagar Co-operative Housing Society, Vs The Joint Registrar / District Cooperative Officer

B.Basawaiah, S/o B.Bikshapathi Vs The Secretary