Disposed

Gopi Appukuttan v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC12 Aug 2015WP/25368/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of five writ petitions where petitioners complained that their goods vehicles were seized by government officers. The court directed the seizing officers to examine vehicle usage and release them within three days subject to bonds and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Directing the seizing officer to release the seized vehicles within three days subject to execution of a bond for their future production, deposit of amount, and non-creation of third party interest.

Gopi Appukuttan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

¶4

WRIT PETITION NOs.25214, 25253, 25368, 25372 & 25375

¶5

of 2015

¶6

W.P.No.25214 of 2015 :

¶7

Between :

¶8

P. Rama Swwamy S/o.Palanisamy Goundar, Aged about 55 yrs, Occu : Owner of the vehicle, R/o.D.No.4/205, Kattusalai, Konur, Namakkal, Namakkal, Tamilnadu State.

¶9

.. Petitioner

¶10

and

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, (Home) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others.

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

W.P.No.25253 of 2015 :

¶14

Between :

¶15

Rajendra Kumar S/o.Venkataswamy Reddy, Aged about 37 yrs, Occu : Owner of the vehicle, R/o.#199, Banahalli, Anekal Tq, Bangalore District, Karnataka.

¶16

.. Petitioner

¶17

and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, (Home) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. .. Respondents W.P.No.25368 of 2015 : Between : Gopi Appukuttan S/o.Apukuttan, Aged about 43 yrs, Occu : Owner of the vehicle, R/o.19/134, Parutharai, Veedu Sooriachode, Vilavancode, Sooriacode, Kenniyakumari, Tamilnadu. .. Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, (Home) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. .. Respondents W.P.No.25372 of 2015 : Between : A. Latha W/o.Alagesan, Aged about 43 yrs, Occu : Owner of the vehicle,

¶18

R/o.1/32, Keel Sathambur PO,

¶19

Namakkal, Paramathi Vellur 637207, Tamilnadu.

¶20

.. Petitioner

¶21

and

¶22

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, (Home) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. .. Respondents W.P.No.25375 of 2015 : Between : Manjunatha S/o.Venkataswami Reddy, Aged about 39 yrs, Occu : Owner of the vehicle, R/o.37A, Ramasagara, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District. .. Petitioner

¶23

and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, (Home) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. .. Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 12.08.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶25

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : Yes / No

¶26

may be allowed to see the Judgments ?

¶27

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes / No

¶28

marked to Law Reporters/Journals

¶29

3. Whether Their Lordship wish to : Yes / No

¶30

see the fair copy of the Judgment ?

¶31

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶32

WRIT PETITION NOs.25214, 25253, 25368, 25372 & 25375

¶33

of 2015

¶34

COMMON ORDER :

¶35

The grievance of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is that even though they have valid permit, their goods vehicles bearing No.TN 28 AH 1175, TN 24 D3 199, TN 75 J7 167, TN 28 AH 1852 and TN 30 L1 663 were seized by the Tahsildar, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District and so far the custody of the vehicles was not given causing grave hardship to the petitioners.

¶36

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, contend that even though a complaint was lodged with the local police on 20.07.2015 alleging seizure of the vehicles, so far the vehicles are not produced in the concerned Court. Therefore, the petitioners

¶37

cannot move any application before the concerned court for release of the vehicles. Learned counsel further submits that in similar matters, this Court granted order for release of the vehicles subject to fulfillment of conditions as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.95, Industries & Commerce (Mines-IV) Department, dated 28.08.2014, subject to production of ownership documents and also with an undertaking that the petitioners shall not create third party interest and shall produce the vehicles as and when required.

¶38

3. Having regard to the above, these writ petitions are disposed of, directing the petitioners to submit representations to the 2^nd respondent who seized their vehicles, for release of the vehicles. The said officer shall, within three days from the date of receipt of the representations, examine whether the vehicles were used in the commission of the offence as prohibited by G.O.Ms.No.95 Industries and Commerce (Mines-IV) Department, dated 28.08.2014 and the officer concerned shall release the vehicles, by duly observing relevant provisions of Para 18 of the Orders, and with such conditions as warranted, including execution of bond by the owner of the vehicles for its production as and when directed by the competent Court, to which such seizure was reported as a consequent to complaint lodged by the Officer, who seized the vehicles; deposit of amount; and not to create third party interest.

¶39

5. With the above observations, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.

¶41

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J

¶42

12^th August, 2015. Note :Issue C.C. in three days. B/o. Rds

Gopi Appukuttan v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopi Appukuttan v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary

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

Mohammed Masihuddin Khan S/o Mohammed Zaheeruddin Khan Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Jupudy Venkata Ramana Murthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.V. Mohan, Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Bala Tripurasundari Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Guntuka Raja Ram Vs The State of Telangana

C.Srinath Reddy Vs The State of Telangana