Disposed

Rosaiah Kannekanti v. The State of A.P. rep.by its Principal Secretary to

Telangana HC18 Oct 2014WP/31105/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the illegal seizure of petitioners' goods carriage vehicles. Expounding the procedure under amended rules, the Court permitted release of vehicles subject to payment of penalty or execution of a bond, and dismissed the petition. No order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; vehicles permitted to be released on payment of penalty or execution of bond; no order as to costs.

Rosaiah Kannekanti Vs The State of A.P. rep.by its… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.31105 OF 2014

¶3

O R D E R :

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondents 1 & 2, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 3^rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the 4^th respondent.

¶5

2. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the respondents 3 and 4 have seized the petitioners’ vehicles bearing Regn Nos.AP 27 AB 4227 (Tractor) and AP 24 B 4431 (Trailer) being Goods Carriage vehicles without following any procedure and that the said seizure is illegal and arbitrary.

¶6

3 . It is not disputed that the seizure is governed by G.O.No.186 dt.17-12-2013, which modified the earlier Rules regulating quarrying and transportation of sand.

¶7

4. The amended Rules, notified in G.O.Ms.No.186 dt.1712-2013, prescribe a penalty for the first and second offences and, thereafter, for the confiscation of the vehicle after following the procedure stipulated therein. Even in cases where a vehicle is sought to be confiscated, the officer who seizes the vehicle is empowered to direct its release under

¶8

Rule 9-Q (6) on execution of a bond by the owner hereof for production of the vehicle so released as and when directed by the Competent Court. Proceedings for confiscation can be instituted in cases where the offences which have been committed are for three or more times.

¶9

5. In view of the amended Rule 9-Q (1) (i) and (ii), read with Rule 9-Q (6), the petitioners are permitted to submit an application to the officer, who seized the vehicles; the said officer shall, within three days from the date of receipt of the applications; examine whether the vehicles were used in committing the offence for the first and the second time; and, if so, consider directing release of the vehicles on payment of the prescribed penalty. If, on the other hand, the vehicles are found to have been used in the commission of the offence, for three or more times, the officer concerned shall consider directing release of the vehicles, in accordance with Rule 9-Q (6), on a bond being executed by the owner of the vehicles for its production as and when directed by the Court.

¶10

6 . The entire exercise, culminating in an order being passed, shall be completed within three days from the date of submission of the representation by the petitioners; and necessary action shall be taken for release of the vehicles, in cases falling within the ambit of Rule 9-Q (1) (i), on payment of the prescribed penalty; and, in other cases, on a bond being executed in terms of Rule 9-Q (6) of the Rules. Similar order

¶11

has also been passed in W.P.No.21958 of 2014 on 04.08.2014.

¶12

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

8. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

____________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J 18^th October, 2014 gra

Rosaiah Kannekanti v. The State of A.P. rep.by its Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rosaiah Kannekanti v. The State of A.P. rep.by its Principal Secretary to

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

Dr. Sanjeev Singh Yadav, Vs Smt. Suryakala

The Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

T. Subhash Goud Vs H. Kashi Reddy

Parsi Pawan Kumar Vs B.Mutyala Prakash

Bantu Madhuri , Sunitha Vs Bantu Suman

K. Kishan Reddy Vs Smt. M. Bushavva