Dismissed

A. Ramulu, S/o. Narsimha Chary, v. The Secretary

Telangana HC27 Jan 2017WP/26090/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the seizure of a vehicle. Noting an interim order has been ineffective for over three years since the related matrimonial/property matter was dismissed, the court declined to interdict law enforcement action and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the respondents are allowed to take necessary action in accordance with law regarding the vehicle.

A. Ramulu, S/o. Narsimha Chary, Vs The Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶4

Writ Petition No.26090 of 2013

¶5

Order: (Per the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)

¶6

None appears for the petitioner. Heard learned Government Pleader for Transport. The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of the respondents in seizing the petitioner’s vehicle, without following the procedure under the statute, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶7

By the impugned order, the vehicle was seized under Section 8 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and under Section 207 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Act, and kept at the R.T.C. Depot, Jangaon. The driver was asked to secure a release order from the road transport authority concerned.

¶8

This Court, by order in W.P.M.P. No. 32220 of 2013 dated 5.9.2013, directed the respondents to release the vehicle subject to the condition that the petitioner deposited Rs.6,225/- and furnished an undertaking that the vehicle would not be sold nor any third party interest would be created. Thereafter, by order dated 19.11.2013, the said W.P.M.P. was dismissed on the ground that there was no representation.

¶9

There has been no interim order in this writ petition ever since 19.11.2013. As the vehicle was released pursuant to the earlier interim order, and as the said interim order has not been in force for the past more than three years, we see no reason, at this stage, to interdict the respondents from taking action in accordance with law.

¶10

Leaving it open to the respondents to take necessary action in accordance with law, the writ petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous

¶11

¶12

Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ)

¶14

_____________________________ (Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J)

27^th January, 2017

pnb

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶19

AND

¶20

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶21

Writ Petition No.26090 of 2013

¶22

Date: 27.1.2017

¶23

pnb

¶24

A. Ramulu, S/o. Narsimha Chary, v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Ramulu, S/o. Narsimha Chary, v. The 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

M/s. Schlumberger Asia Service Limited, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Duddila Rama Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Managing Director

The Government of Telangana Vs D.Pochaiah

Dr.Jayaswamy Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer and Executive Magistrate

A.R. Naga Jogula Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Satyanarayana, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh