Allowed

G. Satyanarayana v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC19 Dec 2013WP/37293/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the illegal seizure of three lorries, the High Court directed the Revenue Department to release the vehicles to the petitioners under Rule 9-Q(6) of the AP Mines & Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, requiring the execution of a bond.

What did the court decide?

Released the seized lorries to the petitioners subject to the conditions in Rule 9-Q (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Mines & Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.

G. Satyanarayana Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.37293 OF 2013

¶2

Dated 19th December 2013

¶3

BETWEEN:

¶4

G.Satyanarayana and 2 others.

¶5

…PETITIONER

¶6

AND

¶7

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others.

¶8

…RESPONDENTS

¶9

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.Naveen Kumar

¶10

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Revenue

¶11

Counsel for respondent No.3: AGP for Home

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in seizing the petitioners’ vehicles bearing Registration Nos.AP 31 TD 2257, AP 31 TU 9586 and AP 31 TU 6377 without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶15

The petitioners pleaded that their lorries were seized on 12.12.2013 by the Village Revenue Officer, Maddi Village, Padmanabham Mandal, and kept in the custody of respondent No.3. The applications filed by them on 13.12.2013 before respondent No.2 did not

¶16

yield any result. Therefore, they have filed the present writ petition.

¶17

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area) placed before the Court, the recently amended Rules notified under G.O.Ms.No.186, dated 17.12.2013. Under Rule 9-Q (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Mines & Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’), any Officer who seized any machinery/vehicle under sub-Rule (1) (iii) of Rule 9-Q and where he makes a report of such seizure to the competent court under sub-Rule (2) may release the same on the execution of a bond by the owner thereof for the production of the machinery/vehicle.

¶18

Considering the fact that the petitioners’ lorries were seized on 12.12.2013 and their applications have not been disposed of so far, respondent No.2 is directed to release the seized lorries to the petitioners subject to the conditions stipulated in Rule 9-Q (6) of the Rules.

¶19

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

¶20

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.46408 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶21

_____________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶22

19^th December 2013 v v

G. Satyanarayana v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Satyanarayana 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yenuganti Sivaramaiah Vs The Superintendent of Police

K.Chinnapa Reddy Vs Sri. T. Ajay Kumar

Meghana Travels, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh.

M/s. Sri Ramagiri Constructions Private Limited Vs M/s. Galaxy Enterprises

K. Srinivas Vs The Regional Transport Officer, Mahaboobnagar.

Nagula Yugandhar Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh rep.by the Principal Secretary