Disposed

Dhanaraju Pallavolu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Telangana HC29 Nov 2018WP/17796/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In common order disposing multiple writ petitions challenging seizure of vehicles for illegal sand transport, the court held no further orders required as vehicles released, preserving respondents' right to act if penalties unpaid.

What did the court decide?

All writ petitions dismissed; no further orders required regarding vehicle release; respondents retain authority to act if penalty unpaid.

Dhanaraju Pallavolu Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.138, 2199, 8441, 8666, 12792, 16103, 17272, 18244, 20180, 23099, 23966 AND 25081 OF 2015; 1183, 13227, 14343, 15042, 15562 AND 17796 OF 2016

¶3

Date:29.11.2018

¶4

W.P.No.138 of 2015

¶5

Between: Gumuluru Satyanarayana, S/o. Atchayya Naidu, aged about 49 years, Occ: Business, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District .. Petitioner

¶6

And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents

¶7

The Court made the following:

¶8

¶9

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶10

WRIT PETITION Nos.138, 2199, 8441, 8666, 12792, 16103, 17272, 18244, 20180, 23099, 23966 AND 25081 OF 2015; 1183, 13227, 14343, 15042, 15562 AND 17796 OF 2016

¶11

COMMON ORDER:

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners challenge the seizure of vehicles alleging illegal transportation of sand. 3. Pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, the vehicles are released.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that penalty was already paid by the petitioners, wherever it was demanded, and in view of the release of the vehicles, no further orders are required to be passed in these Writ Petitions.

¶15

However, learned Government Pleader points out that the vehicles are released because of the interim orders passed by this Court and that does not take away the competency of the authority to take further course of action, if the respondents found that the petitioners violated the norms required for transportation of sand.

¶16

Having regard to the respective submissions, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of holding that no further orders are required with reference to release of the vehicles. However, this order does not come in the way of respondents in taking any action, as warranted by law, if not already taken, or if penalty is not already imposed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶17

P. NAVEEN RAO, J

¶18

Date:29.11.2018 KH

Dhanaraju Pallavolu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanaraju Pallavolu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Venkatesh S/o. Hanmanthu Vs The State of Telangana

Thulasi Bai Katravath Vs The State of Telangana

D.Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

E. Rajasekhar Goud Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shanthi Bai Kethavath S/o Tharya Nayak, Vs The State of Telangana,Rep by its Principal Secretary

C.Venkata Subba Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh