Disposed

Bora Lingamma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Nov 2021WP/26406/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed for the release of a seized motor cycle. The petitioner was directed to release the vehicle by furnishing a fixed deposit of Rs. 10,000 and undertaking not to alter its features, subject to excise department orders.

What did the court decide?

Directing the second respondent to release the seized motor cycle subject to the petitioner furnishing a fixed deposit of Rs. 10,000 and providing an undertaking not to alienate or alter the vehicle.

Bora Lingamma Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE ST AT HYDERiJiDOF^TELANGANA (special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MOj'l.?IY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THE FTRST DAY OF NOVEMBERONE- '

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶5

Between:

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2640 6 0F 2021

¶7

AND

¶8

Bora Lingamma, W/o Lingamallu, Aged about 34 years, Occ House Wife, R/o. H. No. 2-11'llA, Annaram Viiiage, Thun"gatf,urtt i'fi,f'r'"',f"r'i,^{"dr-ryr#i5Hr'iJt:} i,o"";

¶9

l The state of relangana, lep. by its principar Secretary to prohibition and Excise pepqtment, Secreiariai, HvOeianio.^- ?. Il " Pge.rty^{Commissionerbf proh and Excise, Natgonda} District. 3. The Station House Officer, Excise police Station Th-ungattru rtf,i , Suryapet District

¶10

(C.T. is amended as per Court Order dated 01.11.20r, ,.O.*:a?Slorl3l) '" N TS

¶11

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not passing orders directing the 3rd respondent for release of the petitioner's vehicle bearing No. TS 29 L 7937 which was seized in connection with FlR.No.15 of 2021 on the file of the Station House Officer Thungathuruty Excise Police Station, Suryapet^{District inspite of the} petitioner readiness to furnish the third^party surety as being illegal, arbitrary^and unjust and consequently direct the^{2nd respondentto release the vehiclebearing} No. TS 29 L 7937 to the Petitioner

¶12

lA NO: 1 F 202',1

¶13

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circums tances stated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High court may be pleased to direct} the 2nd respondent to^{tssue orders directing the 3'd respondentto releasethe} petitioner vehicle i.e., bearing No. TS^{29 L 7537 which was seizedin connection} with FlR.No.15 of 2021^{on the file of stationHouseOfficer, ThungathurthyExcise} Police station, suryapet^{District pending disposalof the abovewrit petition} Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRIRAPOLU BHASKAR}

¶14

Counsel for Respondents:^{GPFOR PROHIBITIONEXCISE}

¶15

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶16

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN}

¶17

¶18

U/RIT PETITION^{No.26406oF 2021}

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Writ Petition^{is filed to declare the action of 2"d} respondent in^{not passing/directing the 3rd respondentto release} the petitioner's^{vehiclei.e., Super SplenderMotor Cyc1e, bearing} registration No.TS 29^{L 7937 in connection with Cr'No' 15 of 2O2l} of Thungathuruty Excise^Police Station,^{Suryapet District, as} illegal and arbitrary, and sought for a consequential^{direction to} the 2"d respondent to release the same. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of the A.P.Prohibition Act.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that she is the registered owner of the vehicle i.e. , Super Splender Motor Cycle, bearing registration No.TS 29 L 7937. She further submits that the 3.d respondent seized the said vehicle on the ground that vehicle is illega1ly transporting liquor.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the vehicle in dispute is Super Splender Motor Cyc1e, bearing registration No.TS 29 L 7937 and it is of 2O2O make. The petitioner rs using the said vehicle for eaking out her livelihood. In proof of the same, she has filed copy of certificate of registration. By referring the same, learned counsel for the petitioner woulcl submit that an amount of Rs.10,000/- could be the reasonable amount towards security deposit for releasing of the said r.ehicle.

¶24

Considering the lact that the petitioner is only using her vehicle for her livelihood, the vehicle can be released. subject to further proceedings under the Excise Act, on certain terms.

¶25

The Writ petition is accordingly, disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to release the vehicle i.e., Super Splender Motor Cycle, bearing registration No.TS 29 L T\BZ subject to the condition of the petitioner furnishing Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in favour of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner shall also furnish an undertaking that she will not alienate or change the physical features of the vehicle. The 2na respondent shall write to the RTA autl-rority not to transfer the vehicle in favour of any third party without clearance from the Excise Department. Needless to say, release of the vehicle is subject to the orders that shail be^passed by the^second respondent authority pursuant to the enquiry to^{be conducted} under the^provisions of^{the ExciseAct.No orderas to costs.}

¶26

Miscellaneous Petitions, if^{any, pending,shall alsostand}

¶27

closed,

¶28

SD/.K.ONESIM

¶29

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶30

//TRUE COPY// Y/

¶31

SECTION OFFICER

¶32

To, 1 The Principal Secretary to Prohibition and Excise Department, State of Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶33

2 The Deputy Commissioner of Proh and Excise, Suryapet District, 3 The Station House Officer, Excise Police Station Thungathurthi , Suryapet District

¶34

4 One CC to Sri Rapolu Bhaskar Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CCs to GP For Prohibition & Excise, High Court for the State of Telangana \ touTl o. Two CD Copies 7. One Spare Copy I,18C

¶35

HIGH^COURT

¶36

DATED:^01111.12021

¶37

1 $e s IAr€i
rt.
f,
12 Nn\I?1?l
\sri/
ORDER

¶38

WP.No.26406 of 2021

¶39

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶40

WITHOUT COSTS

¶41

¶42

,f,

Bora Lingamma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bora Lingamma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prannoy Pandy Vs The State of Telangana

Gadekarla Chaitanya Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

Nekkanti Venkata Siva Rama Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

Chappidi Venkat Reddy Vs State of Telangana and 3 others

Marthi Venkat Reddy Vs The Superintendent of Police and another

Laji Ke Praveen Kumar Vs The State of Telangana