Disposed

Rangisetty Nagabhushanam, v. The Satate of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC8 Dec 2015WP/39772/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of their lorries alleged to carry illegal sand and inaction regarding representation for release. The Court directed the seizure reporting authority to submit the report and the releasing authority to pass an order within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 directed to submit seizure report; Respondent No.2 directed to consider representations and pass order for release within three days.

Rangisetty Nagabhushanam, Vs The Satate of… — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.39772 of 2015

¶3

Date:08.12.2015

¶4

Between: Rangisetty Nagabhushanam, S/o Venkateswarlu and three others.

¶5

..... Petitioners

¶6

And: The State of A.P., reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Hyderabad and two others.

¶7

.....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Kambhampati Ramesh Babu

¶8

Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP for Panchayat Raj (AP) Counsel for Respondent No.2: AGP for Revenue (AP) Counsel for Respondent No.3: AGP for Home (AP)

¶9

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶10

Feeling aggrieved by seizure of the lorries of the petitioners by respondent No.3 on 25.10.2015 and the inaction of respondent No.2 in disposing of their representations for release of the seized lorries, this Writ Petition is filed.

¶11

A perusal of the record shows that respondent

¶12

No.3 has registered a common F.I.R. bearing No.42 of 2015 on 25.10.2015 following the seizure of the petitioners’ lorries on the allegation that they were being used for illegal transportation of sand. The petitioners claimed to have made separate representations on 01.12.2015 before respondent No.2 for release of the seized lorries in terms of G.O.Ms.No.95, Industries and Commerce (Mines-IV) Department, dated 28.8.2014.

¶13

The grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of the said representations, respondent No.2 has not considered the same and released the seized lorries.

¶14

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Pradesh), on instructions, submitted that so far, respondent No.3 has not submitted the seizure report to respondent No.2.

¶15

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home (Andhra Pradesh) is unable to state whether such representations have been forwarded to respondent No.3. In the light of the above facts, respondent No.3 is directed to send the seizure report to respondent No.2, if they are not already sent, forthwith and not later than two days from today. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the petitioners representations for release of the seized lorries and pass appropriate orders in terms of G.O.Ms.No.95, dated 28.8.2015, within three days from the date of receipt of the seizure report from respondent No.3.

¶16

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶17

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.51332 of 2015 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶18

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶19

08^th December, 2015

¶20

Rangisetty Nagabhushanam, v. The Satate of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangisetty Nagabhushanam, v. The Satate of Andhra Pradesh

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

Smt. Kondaveeti Krishna Kumari, Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

Dr.Dinkar Bhole S/o Late Dr.Raghunath Bhole Vs The State of Telangana

Gangasani Ravinder Reddy, Vs State of Telangana, Repby its Prl. Secretary to Govt

Aallahari Siva Durga Prasad S/o Rama Murthy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yeluri Anand, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V. Rajani, Vs Peddapalli Nagar Panchayat