Allowed

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

Telangana HC30 Apr 2013WP/13623/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the arbitrary seizure of a vehicle for alleged overloading. The court directed the release of the vehicle subject to offloading excess weight and depositing funds, leaving a broader legal question on compounding open for future consideration.

What did the court decide?

Release of seized vehicle No.AP 24 Y 4881 subject to offloading excess load and depositing Rs.16,000/- with undertaking to produce vehicle before Magistrate as required during prosecution.

B.Basawaiah, S/o B.Bikshapathi Vs The… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

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

¶2

Writ Petition No.13623 of 2013

Dt: 30.04.2013

Between:

B.Basawaiah

…Petitioner

And The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Nalgonda District and 2 others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Ch.Ravinder Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP for Transport

¶10

Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4: GP for Mines & Geology

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

Order:

¶13

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seizing the petitioner’s Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.AP 24 Y 4881, under Vehicle Check Report No.1803321, dated 17.04.2013, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶14

The petitioner is the owner of the above-mentioned vehicle, which was seized on 17.04.2013 on the ground of overloading. The petitioner has, however, made an application on 22.04.2013 to respondent No.1, for release of the seized vehicle. The grievance of the petitioner is that this application has not been considered.

¶15

At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Transport submitted that even though Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) provides for composition of the offence which pertains to overloading, the authority concerned has discretion whether to compound or to launch prosecution. He further submitted that the overloading of the vehicles, in far too excess of the permitted laden weight, is not only causing accidents but also damaging the roads and that, therefore, wherever the

¶16

overload is found to be highly excessive, prosecution is being launched so that appropriate action can be taken by the respondents under Section 86 of the Act.

¶17

The question, whether the competent authority has discretion to launch prosecution even if the owner of the vehicle agrees for compounding or not, does not directly arise for consideration in this case. Therefore, this issue is left open for being decided in appropriate cases.

¶18

In the present case, it is not stated before this Court that prosecution has already been commenced and a case has been registered. As the vehicle is still in the custody of respondent No.1 and it is under seizure for the last two weeks, it is appropriate that the respondents release the above-mentioned vehicle to the petitioner, subject to offloading the excess load and on the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.16,000/- (Rupees sixteen thousand only) with respondent No.1. The petitioner shall give an undertaking in writing that during the course of prosecution, the said vehicle will be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate as and when required.

¶19

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶20

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.16693 of 2013, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶21

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)

¶22

Dt: 30^th April, 2013 lur/gra

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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)

M. Appala Naidu Vs The Project Director

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

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