Dismissed

Narsimulu Doola v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Feb 2015WP/3881/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the illegal seizure of a tractor-trailer by respondents for alleged offenses under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The Court directed the competent authority to examine the vehicle's usage history and grant release upon payment of penalties and deposit of security.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit application for release; competent authority directed to examine vehicle history and decide on release based on usage and penalty/deposit.

Narsimulu Doola Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.3881 OF 2015

¶3

O R D E R :

¶4

This petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 4 and 5 in seizing the petitioner’s vehicle bearing No.KA 36TA 4221-AP 22U 5148–Tractor and Trailer, without following any procedure under statutes contemplated under Section 9Q, Sub Section 7 of the A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966, as illegal and arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction to the respondents to give interim custody of the said vehicles to the petitioner forthwith.

¶5

It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in similar circumstances, this Court has disposed of W.P.No.3747 of 2015 today giving certain directions and that the present case is covered by the said judgment, which is not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj (Telangana), Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

¶6

In view of the said representation, following the said judgment, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit an application for release of the vehicle before the competent authority and the competent authority, within three days from the date of receipt of such application, examine whether the vehicle is used in committing the offence for the first and second time; and if so, consider directing release of the vehicle on payment of the prescribed penalty. If, on the other hand, the vehicle is found to have been used in commission of the offence, for three or more times, the officer concerned shall consider directing release of the vehicle after deposit of amount in accordance with Rule-12 of GO.Ms.No.15, dated 19.02.2015 and also on execution of bond along with an affidavit giving consent to produce

¶7

the seized vehicle as and when required.

¶8

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶9

____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 23.02.2015 Note: issue CC by tomorrow. B/o.t k.

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.3881 OF 2015

¶12

Date: 23.02.2015

¶13

Narsimulu Doola v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narsimulu Doola v. The State of Telangana

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

Konijetti Sreeramamurthy Vs Durajati Sucheta

M/s. Indus Towers Limited Vs Mr. Ramulu

B. Satyavathi, Vs Guntur Municipal Corporation

Srinivas Reddy Methuku Vs The State of Telangana rep.by its Principal Secretary to

Nimmagadda Tirupathi Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

S. Yadaiah, S/o Sathaiah, Vs The State of Telangana