Disposed

Md. Baber Hussain v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Aug 2019WP/16311/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ relief for release of seized vehicle due to illegal sand transportation allegation. Bench noted lack of proof regarding representation filing. Petition disposed with direction to apply to Magistrate or 2nd Respondent citing G.O.Ms.No.15 for vehicle release within three days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to apply for vehicle release to jurisdictional Magistrate or 2nd Respondent citing G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 19.02.2015; such application to be disposed within three days.

Md. Baber Hussain Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.16311 OF 2019

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed praying to direct the respondents to release the vehicle. Petitioner alleges his vehicle was seized by the 2^nd respondent on the allegation of illegal transportation of sand.

¶4

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that on 28.07.2019 a representation was made by the petitioner requesting the Station House Officer, Tandur Police Station, Vikarabad District, to release the vehicle. It appears, no orders are passed as on today. However, there is no proof of filing such representation before the Station House Officer.

¶5

Since there is no proof of filing of representation, it cannot be said that respondents are acting illegally in not attending to grievance of petitioner. Therefore, Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶6

Petitioner is at liberty to approach either the learned jurisdictional Magistrate before whom the vehicle may have been produced and file application as per the procedure established by law and seek release of the vehicle by bringing to the notice of the Court the policy decision taken by the Government and the terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, Industries and Commerce (Mines-I) Department, dated 19.02.2015, if the petitioner so desires, after examining the competence and jurisdiction to release the vehicle, if it was produced before the Court concerned; or in the alternative he may make a request to the 2^nd respondent by filing appropriate application for release of vehicle, if not already filed and not received by the 2^nd respondent; and if any such application is filed

¶7

¶8

before the 2^nd respondent, the 2^nd respondent is at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 19.02.2015. It is needless to state that the application, if any, filed by the petitioner before either the Court or the 2^nd respondent, shall be disposed of within three days from the date of filing in the interest of justice.

¶9

Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. No order

¶10

as to costs.

¶11

___________________
P.NAVEEN RAO, J
2 nd August, 2019
sur

Md. Baber Hussain v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Baber Hussain v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Bochu Vanaja, Vs The state of Telangana

Mohd.Azam Vs The State of Telangana

Rangu Bhikshapathi Vs The State of Telangana

P.Srinivas Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Limited. Vs State of Telangana

Ajaz Ahmed Khan Vs The State of Telangana