Disposed

Layam Yeswhanth, v. The State Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC18 Sept 2014WP/26734/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking mandamus for interim custody of a seized car due to the Deputy Commissioner's inaction. Relying on precedent, the court allowed an application only if specific conditions, including a fixed deposit and participation in inquiries, were met, while noting the petitioners did not file such an application.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of without costs as the petitioners failed to apply for custody under the specified conditions.

Layam Yeswhanth, Vs The State Government of Andhra… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

W.P.No.26734 of 2014

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

The petitioners two in number seek a writ of mandamus for declaring the inaction on the part of the 3^rd respondent in granting the interim custody of Maruti Zen Car bearing Registration No.AP-036777, in their favour, as contrary, illegal and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to them.

¶5

The affidavit filed in support of this writ petition has been sworn to by the 1^st petitioner herein. He claims to have purchased the said vehicle from the 2^nd petitioner, the registered owner of the vehicle, on 26-03-2014 for a sum of Rs.51,116/-. On 03-04-2014, the SubInspector of Police, Punganur Police Station, Chittoor District, while undertaking inspection of the vehicles on the eve of the General Elections, found the vehicle in question transporting 135 nibs of Original Choice whiskey in a bag. Consequently, Criminal Case No.104 of 2014 has been registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Punganur. The 1^st petitioner herein was shown as A-1 to the said crime, while the driver of the vehicle was shown as A-2. A-1 was apprehended, but A-2 managed to escape from the scene, is the allegation. It appears that on 14-06-2014, under instructions of the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor District, the case was made-over to the Prohibition & Excise Station at Punganur, which re-registered the case as Crime No.142 of 2014-15. The vehicle in question is still parked in the Police Station premises. Therefore, the present writ petition is moved complaining that though the 1^st petitioner has applied to the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Chittoor, on 20-07-2014, for interim custody of the said vehicle, the Deputy Commissioner has not passed any orders thereon and hence, the inaction on the part of the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise,

¶6

Chittoor District, is the complaint in this writ petition.

¶7

Though the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Chittoor District, is impleaded as the 3^rd respondent, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition & Excise, Punganur, has preferred to file his counter affidavit. It is pointed out in this counter-affidavit that as per the registration certificate of the motor vehicle in question, it is the 2^nd petitioner, who is its registered owner and there is no change of ownership recorded in favour of the 1^st petitioner herein and hence, the 1^st petitioner cannot seek interim custody of the offending vehicle. However, the Sub-Inspector has not dealt with the laxity on the part of the Deputy Commissioner in not communicating the said decision to the 1^st petitioner.

¶8

In PULIGOLU PRAVEEN v. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE^[1] (W.P.No.15375 OF 2014, dated 11-06-2014), I considered at length regarding entrustment of the interim custody of an offending vehicle pending confiscation proceedings and even if confiscation proceedings are finalized, the efficacy of collecting money in lieu of the confiscation of the motor vehicle as such a provision is available under Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act.

¶9

In view of the principles set out in the above Judgment, I consider that the 2^nd petitioner, if applies to the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Chittoor District, seeking interim custody of the vehicle in question, any such application may be considered duly imposing the following conditions and stipulations:

¶10

1. the motor vehicle bearing registration No. AP-03-6777, shall be referred to the Motor Vehicle Inspector for determination of its value and the applicant shall undertake that he will make good of the said amount to avoid confiscation of the vehicle; in the event the Deputy Commissioner decides that the same is liable to be confiscated.

¶11

2. the applicant along with the application shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) by way of a fixed

¶12

deposit receipt obtained by him in the name of the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Chittoor District, on any of the Nationalized Banks for a period of one year.

¶13

3. the applicant shall produce a copy of the ownership / registration certificate of the vehicle in question;

¶14

4. the applicant shall produce his identity proof;

¶15

5. the applicant shall give an undertaking that he will participate in any inquiry that might be ordered by the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Chittoor District. He shall also deposit two sufficiently-stamped registered postal envelopes by superscribing his address for communicating the notice of hearing as well as the final order.

¶16

6. he shall undertake that he will not alienate, sell or create third party interests thereon.

¶17

Let any application be decided as expeditiously as possible preferably within seven working days from the date of its receipt, inasmuch as the vehicle is exposed to rain and shine for the past over five months.

¶18

With this, the writ petition stands disposed of at the admission stage, but however, without costs.

¶19

Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand disposed of.

¶20

__________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.

¶21

18.09.2014.

¶22

[1] MANU/AP/1047/2014

Layam Yeswhanth, v. The State Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Layam Yeswhanth, v. The State 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

Danda Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Basaveswara Rao Vs The State Represented by the Principal

P.Narsingam, S/o Mallaiah Vs The Fisheremen Industries Cooperative Society Ltd.

Nulakani Veeranagaiah, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Bodhan Filling Station Vs B Padmavathi

Smt. P.Arun Kumari Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

P.R. Narasimha Reddy S/o Rami Reddy Vs The Commissioner, Appeals, O/o the Chief Commissioner