Allowed

M. Radhakrishna, v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC5 Jul 2016WP/21554/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking release of a seized vehicle detained for excess load. While allowing the petition in principle, the court directed the petitioner to deposit fines and charges, provide an undertaking for production, and submit proof of ownership and tax payment as conditions for immediate release.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to release the vehicle upon the petitioner depositing fines, paying off-loading charges, furnishing an undertaking, and submitting proof of ownersh

M. Radhakrishna, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 21554 of 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for Transport. With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

¶5

The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the seizure of petitioner’s vehicle bearing No.AP 29 U 2439 vide vehicle check report No.0925101, as illegal and arbitrary. A consequential relief is sought to the respondents to release the vehicle to the petitioner.

¶6

The Government Pleader for Transport submits that an application filed by the petitioner for compounding the offence is still pending, as such the question of release of vehicle would not arise.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that compounding of offence should not come in the way of the authorities in releasing the vehicle and if ultimately the petitioner fails, further action as contemplated under law can be taken against the petitioner. Till such time no purpose would be served in detaining the vehicle.

¶8

Learned Government Pleader for Transport would further draw attention of this Court to Section 194 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which relates to vehicle being driven with weight exceeding the permissible limit. Under sub-section (1) thereof, whoever drives a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions

¶9

of Sections 113, 114 and 115 shall be punishable with a minimum fine of two thousand rupees, and an additional amount of one thousand rupees per tonne of excess load, together with the liability to pay charges for off-loading of the excess loading permissible weight.

¶10

In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions, ends of justice would be met if the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority concerned is directed to consider release of the subject vehicle forthwith to the petitioner on their fulfillment of the following conditions:

¶11

1) The petitioner shall deposit Rs.2,000/- and an additional amount of Rs.1,000/- per tonne of excess load;

¶12

2) The petitioner shall also pay the charges, intimated to them by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority concerned, for off-loading of the excess permissible weight;

¶13

3) The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking to produce the subject vehicle as and when required to be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate; and

¶14

4) The petitioner shall file proof of ownership and other valid documents including the proof of payment of the tax due before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority concerned.

¶15

The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶16

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶17

_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶18

05.07.2016 Note: Issue C.C. by Monday. B/o gkv

M. Radhakrishna, v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Radhakrishna, v. The State of Telangana, 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

V.Lakshmi Narayana Vs K.Prabhakar Reddy

Angadi Pitchaiah, Vs State of Aandhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

Jadav Murahari Vs The STate of Telangana

Javaji Narasaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary

Marathu Madhavi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal

Sri Y.S.P Murthy, Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary