Dismissed

K.v.Rajesh, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC20 Dec 2013WP/37434/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging vehicle seizure. It held that the petitioner failed to approach the competent authority for release first. The petition was disposed of with liberty to apply for release and obtain a decision within three days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to approach Respondent No.2 in writing for vehicle release; Respondent No.2 to decide within three days.

K.v.Rajesh, 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.37434 of 2013

¶2

Dated:20.12.2013

¶3

Between: K.V.Rajesh, S/o K.N.Dattatreya

¶4

…Petitioner

¶5

And

¶6

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

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Rajanikanth Jwala

¶9

Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Transport

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This Writ Petition is filed feeling aggrieved by the seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No.AP-35-V-8778, vide vehicle check report No.080814, dated 14.12.2013.

¶13

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.

¶14

A Division Bench of this Court in Saleem Tours and Travels v. Joint Transport Commissioner and

¶15

held that Secretary, RTA, Hyderabad and another^[1] the owner of the seized vehicle has to first approach the competent authority with an application for release before availing the remedy before 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 release of the seized vehicle. If such 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 and another^[2] , take an appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of three days from the date of receipt of such application. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.46582 of 2013 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶18

_______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶19

20^th December, 2013 Note: Issue CC by 23.12.2013 B/o DR

¶20

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

¶21

[2] 2012 (5) ALT 609

K.v.Rajesh, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Rajesh, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

G. Satyanarayana Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K. Srinivas Vs The Regional Transport Officer, Mahaboobnagar.

Sukka Sarvaiah Vs The State of A.P.

Sri S. Sanjeeva Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Home

D.Suresh Chaithanya, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh