Disposed

St. Marys College of Engineering and Technology, v. The Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary

Telangana HC18 Mar 2016WP/8256/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition challenging vehicle seizure was disposed of as not pressed since the amount was deposited and the vehicle released. The court granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 12 of the Act within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file appeal under Section 12 of the Act within four weeks; pending applications closed.

St. Marys College of Engineering and… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶4

Writ Petition No.8256 of 2006

¶5

Date:18.3.2016

¶6

Between: St. Mary’s College of Engineering And Technology, Hyderabad.

¶7

…..Petitioner

¶8

And The Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad and others.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶11

Writ Petition No.8256 of 2006

¶12

ORDER:(Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

This writ petition challenges the seizure of petitioner’s vehicle bearing No. AP 09 7243 vide Vehicle Check Report No. 0734530, dated 19.4.2006.

¶15

This Court, while admitting the writ petition, directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/- with the 1^st respondent, with further direction to release the vehicle on such deposit being made. We are informed that the petitioner deposited the said amount and their vehicle was released.

¶16

In view thereof, Mr. Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given liberty to file an appeal under Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’), with a direction to decide the appeal within time frame.

¶17

Mr. Venkata Raghu Ramulu, learned Government Pleader for the respondents has no objection for allowing the petitioner to file appeal, subject to their right to oppose the appeal on merits, and also on the ground of limitation.

¶18

Hence, we dispose of the writ petition by the following order:

¶19

“The writ petition is disposed of as not pressed. It is open to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 12 of the Act, challenging the order of seizure of the vehicle within a period of four weeks from today.

¶20

If the appeal is filed, as aforementioned, the appellate authority shall decide the appeal on merits, in accordance with law. It is made clear that if the appeal is not filed within the stipulated time, it will be open to the respondents to take further action, if any, in accordance with law.” Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications shall also stand closed. No costs.

¶21

____________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶22

__________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J 18^th March, 2016 Pnb

St. Marys College of Engineering and Technology, v. The Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

St. Marys College of Engineering and Technology, v. The Deputy Transport Commissioner and 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

Anjuman-e-Khadimul Muslimeen, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

K. Bhupani, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. N.Sundeetha, Vs Regional Transport Officer

K.Giridhar, Vs The Regional Transport Officer

Sree Vijayawada Gosamrakshana Sangham Vs the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation rep by its

M/s. St.Rita High School, Vs The State Of Telangana, Rept. By Secretary to Government