Dismissed

Meghana Travels, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh.

Telangana HC18 Dec 2013WP/37109/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the writ petition as it was premature. The petitioner failed to approach the competent authority for the release of the seized vehicle before filing the writ. Liberty was granted to approach the authority first.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to approach respondent No.2 for release of the seized vehicle via an application in writing.

Meghana Travels, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.37109 of 2013

¶2

Dated 1 8 th December, 2013

Between:

Meghana Travels

…Petitioner

And

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Rajanikanth Jwala

¶10

Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Transport

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed feeling aggrieved by the seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No.AP-29-TB-4734 vide vehicle check report No.3298668, dated 14.12.2013.

¶14

At the hearing, Sri Rajanikanth Jwala, learned counsel for the petitioner, has fairly submitted that his client has not approached the respondents with an application to release the seized vehicle before approaching this Court.

¶15

A Division Bench of this Court in Saleem Tours and Travels v. Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary, RTA, Hyderabad and [1] another held that a owner of the seized vehicle has to first approach the competent authority with an application for release before availing the remedy of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

Therefore, following the ratio in the said judgment, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage.

¶17

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent No.2 with an application in writing for such

¶18

release of the seized vehicle. If such an application is filed, respondent No.2 shall consider the same in accordance with the law laid down in Saleem Tours and Travels (1 supra) and Shoukat Hussain v. Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Adilabad [2] and another , take appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of three days from the date of receipt of such application.

¶19

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.46182 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶21

18^th December, 2013 VGB

¶22

[1] 2000 (4) ALD 501 (DB)

¶23

[2] 2012 (5) ALT 609

Meghana Travels, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meghana Travels, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. J.C.N. Restaurant and Bar, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Velidi Harinath baba Vs The District Collector

The Managing committee of Edgah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its

Yenuganti Sivaramaiah Vs The Superintendent of Police

K.Chinnapa Reddy Vs Sri. T. Ajay Kumar

Sai Anjana Tours and Travels, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh.