Dismissed

Uma Devi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Sept 2020WP/15228/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking release of a motor vehicle seized for alleged narcotic offense. The High Court held the petition not maintainable as the petitioner failed to avail the revision remedy against the Special Court's decision refusing release, which precludes granting equitable relief under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for release of the seized vehicle is dismissed without costs.

Uma Devi Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P, NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 15228 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Uma Devi, W/o. Josl Jyothi Singh, aged about 46 years R/o. H. No. 29-46, Gandhi Nagar, Qutbullapur Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. Owner of lvlaruthi swift car zxi BS lll Bearing No APF 4444

¶9

...pErrroNER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, B-R-K .R. Bhavan, Tankbund, Hyderabad

¶12

The S uperintendent of Police, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶13

The S tation House Officer, Bhadrachalam Town PS, Khammam ?].r*,!8,;orr.*r,

¶14

Petition under Article 226 o'f lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declare the seizure of Maruthi Swift ZXI BSlll Car Bearing No AP 24F 4444 of the petitioner under Cover of panchanama dated 0210812020 by the 3rd respondent is illegal, improper and without any power or authority under law, vlolation of Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution of lndia

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the Respondents to release the seized Maruthi Swift ZXI BSlll Car Bearing^No AP 24F 4444 of the petitioner under cover of^panchnama dated 0210812020 by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the main Writ^petition

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PONNAM ASHOK GOUD

¶18

Counsel for Respondents: AGP FOR HOME

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO.15228 O? 2O2O

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Heard Iearned counsel for petitioner and Iearned Assistant Gor.ernme nt Plcader for Home.

¶24

This writ petition is liled pral,ing to direct tht: respon(lcnts tc) release motor vehicle bearing registration No.AP 24F 4444 w'hich u.as seized on the allegation of carrying Ganja

¶25

From the material on record, it is seen that petitioner filed Cr1.MP.No.403 ol 2O2O in Cr.No.287 ol 2O2O on the file of Bhadrachalam Police Station in the Court of Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act-Cum-l Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam. By order dated 18.08.2020, the Special Court dismissed the application rejecting the release of the vehicle. Against the said decision, petitioner has remedy in the form of revision belorc this Court. Without availing the said remedy, the petitioner straightaway instituted the writ petirion.

¶26

Though the petitioner sought for issuance of Writ oI Mandamus, relief sought is nothing but amounting to revieu' the decision of the competent Special Court in a u,rit petition liled under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia. Whcn thc competent Court has exercised its discretion to refuse to grant relief ot release of vehicle, an equitable relief under Article 226 cannot be granted contrary to the view taken by the Special Court. Thus writ petition is not maintainable.

¶27

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to

¶28

the petitioner to work out his remedies against the decision of the

¶29

competent Special Court. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶30

SD/.N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One cc to Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana (OUT) Two CD Copies IVBC

HIGH^COURT

(

DATED:^09/09/2020

;:,
1 tAe rA r6'
q
oo '1 7 SEP ?.$ZO f)
t,
CFSr..-1' /

¶39

ORDER

¶40

WP.No.15228^{of 2020}

¶41

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT PETITION}

¶42

WITHOUT COSTS

¶43

t") 7p).o,
l./

Uma Devi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Devi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anugu Bhagya Lakshmi Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Poosala Lakshmi Vs the State of Telangana

IMl Mobile Europe Limited, Vs TeIeDNA Communications Private Limited

Rathod Ravindar Vs The State of Telangana and another

Doreti Swapna Vs The State of Telengana

K Rajesh Reddy Vs the State of Tg