Disposed

Pitchakuntla Mahipal v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Sept 2016WP/33000/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the seizure of a petitioner's tractor and trailer. It directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for vehicle release within three weeks citing G.Os and a prior court order.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for vehicle release within three weeks and pass appropriate orders.

Pitchakuntla Mahipal Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.33000 OF 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seizing petitioner’s tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 27H 5162 and AP 27H 5163, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleaders for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Home, Revenue, and Mines and Geology (Telangana).

¶6

The petitioner claims to be the owner of tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 27H 5162 and AP 27H 5163. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.2 and 4 intercepted his tractor and trailer on 22.9.2016 at Jadcherla alleging that the sand was being transported in the vehicle illegally. It is the further case of the petitioner that the sand was being transported in the vehicle with valid permit. The petitioner has submitted a representation dated 23.9.2016 to the second respondent with a request to release the vehicle. For one reason or the other, the second respondent has not disposed of the representation of the petitioner.

¶7

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.39888 of 2015 dated 09.12.2015 and that a large number of similar and identical cases have been disposed of directing the authorities to release the seized vehicles in terms of G.O.Ms.No.3, Industries and

¶8

¶9

Commerce (Mines.I) Department, dated 08.01.2015 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.15, Industries & Commerce (Mines.I) Department, dated 19.02.2015.

¶10

While concurring with the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleaders would submit that this writ petition may be disposed of in similar lines to the order of this Court in writ petition No.39888 of 2015.

¶11

In view of the above, the second respondent is hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23.9.2016 for release of the vehicle and pass appropriate orders thereon in the light of the aforementioned G.Os within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶12

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶13

________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J September 28, 2016. YS

Pitchakuntla Mahipal v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pitchakuntla Mahipal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Violet Pranaa Bio Sciences, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep its Principal Secretary

M/s. Margosa Biogrow (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Director of Agriculture

Ch.Yellaiah, Vs The State of Telangana

Yemmiganur Auto Workers Union, Vs A.P State Road transport Corporation Ltd,,.

Biotech International Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Margosa Biogrow (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Director of Agriculture