Disposed

Sanjeevarayudu Boya S/o.Naganna, v. The Assistant Project Director Dwama Kurnool

Telangana HC31 Oct 2013WP/31188/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the seizure of tractors without adjudication on merits, directing the petitioners to first submit written applications for release to the competent authority under the Relevant Rules within which authority must decide within three days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to make written applications for release of seized vehicles; Respondent No.2 to consider applications and pass orders within three days; Writ Petition and interlocutory writ disp

Sanjeevarayudu Boya S/o.Naganna, Vs The Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31188 of 2013

¶2

Date: 31.10.2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

Sanjeevarayudu Boya and others

¶5

.. Petitioners

¶6

and

¶7

The Assistant Project Director, Kurnool and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri V.Brahmaiah Chowdary

¶10

Counsel for respondent No.1: Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj

¶11

Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seizing the petitioners’ tractors and trailers bearing registration Nos.AP 22 W 2881 - AP 22 W 2882, AP 21 TU 0756 - AP 21 TU 0757, AP 21 TU 0533 – AP 21 Y 3237, AP 21 TU 9652 – AP 21 X 8002,

¶14

AP 21 R 8844 – AP 21 Y 7657 and AP 04 N 3854 – AP 04 N 3853 and Engine bearing registration No.AP 21 TW 4228 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶15

At the hearing, Sri, V.Brahmaiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioners, fairly stated that before filing this writ petition, his clients have not approached respondent No.2 with the written applications for release of the seized vehicles.

¶16

In my opinion, as respondent No.2 is vested with the power to release the seized vehicles under Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 9-Q of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’), the petitioners ought to have first approached him with written applications for release of the seized vehicles. As this procedure is not followed by the petitioners, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition for adjudication on merits at this stage.

¶17

The petitioners are permitted to make applications in writing for release of the seized vehicles. If such applications are filed, respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders under Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 9-Q of the Rules within a period of three days of receipt of such applications.

¶18

Subject to the liberty and the direction as above, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶19

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.38740 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶21

31^st October, 2013 GHN

Sanjeevarayudu Boya S/o.Naganna, v. The Assistant Project Director Dwama Kurnool

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeevarayudu Boya S/o.Naganna, v. The Assistant Project Director Dwama Kurnool

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

Mustafa Ali Vs The State of a. P

Chakilam Lalitha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd. Jameel, S/o Mohd. Jaffer, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Samdurala Venu Gopal Rao, Vs The Govt., of A.P.

Sri Bobbara Sundara Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

C.Munirajulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh