Allowed

B. Sudhakar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC23 Apr 2015WP/11645/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking release of a seized excavator. Relying on earlier judgment in W.P.No.744 of 2015, the Court directed the respondents to examine the seizure within three days and release the vehicle upon payment of penalty and execution of a bond under specific Rules.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to examine seizure within three days and release vehicle on payment of penalty and execution of bond under Rule 18.

B. Sudhakar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.11645 of 2015

¶3

Date: 23-04-2015

¶4

Between:

¶5

B. Sudhakar Reddy

¶6

.... Petitioner

¶7

AND

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary to Panchayat Raj Department, Hyderabad and 2 others

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶11

Writ Petition No.11645 of 2015

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seizing the petitioner’s vehicle Tata Hitachi Excavator Ex-70 LC without following any procedure under the statute as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction to the respondents to release the said vehicle for interim custody to the petitioner forthwith.

¶14

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶15

submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court disposed of W.P.No.744 of 2015 on 27-01-2015 giving certain directions and that the present case is squarely covered by the said judgment, which is not disputed or denied by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

¶16

3. In view of the said representation, following the ratio laid down in the said judgment, the petitioner is directed to submit a representation to the officer who seized the vehicle; the said officer shall within three days from the date of receipt of the application examine whether the vehicle was used in committing the offence for the first or the second time; and, if so, consider directing release of the vehicle on payment of the prescribed penalty and also on execution of bond by the owner of the vehicle for its production as and when directed by the competent Court to which such seizure was reported by the Officer who seized the vehicle.

¶17

4. 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 petitioner and necessary action shall be taken for release of the vehicle, in case falling within the ambit of Rule 18(i)(a) on payment of the prescribed penalty and also on execution of a bond in terms of Rule 18(vii) of the Rules.

¶18

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶19

A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

¶20

Date: 23-04-2015

¶21

Ksn

B. Sudhakar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Sudhakar Reddy v. The State 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

Banoth Ammi Vs The Slate of Telangana

Banoth Hachi Vs The State of Telangana

J. Madhu Babu Vs The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary

Chenchireddy Gari Thippa Reddy, Vs Dharmavaram Municipality

Licensed Engineers Association of Guntur, Vs The Government of Ap, (Ma and Ud Department)

K. Harinath, S/o. K. Neelakanta Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal