Allowed

Pesara Gopal Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Telangana HC2 Nov 2021WP/27485/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court disposed of a writ petition filed for the release of a seized vehicle. The Court directed the respondent authorities to release an Eicher DCM vehicle seized under the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release the Eicher DCM vehicle subject to depositing Rs. 75,00/- and furnishing an undertaking not to alienate or transfer the vehicle.

Pesara Gopal Reddy Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 27485 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pesara Gopal Reddy, S/o. Ravinder Reddy, Age 30 years, Occ. Owner of the Eicher DCM vehicle bearing No. AP 16 TX 3245, F/o.H.No.1-31 , Jajireddy gudem, Kunchamarthi, Solipet, Nalgonda District.

¶9

...'ETIT'ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

I The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶13

The Station House Officer, Mothey Police Station, Suryapet District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the 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, declaring the action of the 2nd^respondent in^not passing/d irecting the 3rd respondent to release the Eicher DCM vehicle bearing No. AP 16 TX 3245, seized in FIR No.67 ot 2020, dated.^{18/05/2020,seizedof} petitioners vehicle was being illegal, arbitrary and unjust also Article 14, 19,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct^{the 2nd respondentto} order for release of the vehicle to the^petitioner, and to^grant.

¶16

fA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

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 2nd respondent herein to issue orders^{directingthe 3rd respondentto release} the Eicher DCM vehicle bearing No. AP^{16 TX3245,seizedin FIR No.67 ol 2020'} dated. 18/05/2020,^pending disposal^{of the main Writ Petition.}

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI LAXMAIAH^KANCHANI

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP^{FOR PROHIBITION ANDEXCISE} Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR^HOME

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE I{ONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶22

\VRIT PETITION No.2 7485 of202l

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not directing the 3d respondent to release Eicher DCM Vehicle bearing No.AP l6 TX 3245 belonging to the petitioner seized in connection with FIR.No.6'7 of 2020 for the offences under Section 34(e) ofthe Telangana Excise Act, 1968, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶25

Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and the learned Covemment Pleader for Prohibition and Excise.

¶26

The case ol the petitioner is that he is the owner of the Eicher DCM Vehicle l-.,earing No.AP l6 TX3245, which was purchased by availing financial assistance from private financier and eking out his livelihood from out of the income derived from it by engaging a driver to ply the vehicle. He further states that on 18.05.2020, the 3d respondent seized his vehicle falsely and registered the above said crime on the pretext that 4250 kgs of black jiggery and 25 kgs of Alum were found in the vehicle, which are used for manufacturing of I.D. Liquor.

¶27

Leamed counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject vehicle is of the year 2007 make and it is Goods Carriage vehicle. In proof of the same, he had filed copy of the registration ceftillcate. By rel'erring the same, learned counsel for the petitioner wou ld submit that an amount of Rs.75,000/- could be the reasonabre amount towards security deposit for releasing of the vehicle.

¶28

¶29

Considering the fact that the petitioner is using rhe subject vehicle for eking out his livelihood, the vehicle can be released subject to further proceedings under the Act, on^{certain terms.}

¶30

The writ^petition is,^{accordingly,disposedof directingthe} respondents to release^{the EicherDCM Vehiclebearing No'APl6 TX} 3245 subject^{to the conditionof the petitioner furnishingFixed} Deposit Receipt^{(FDR) lor Rs'75,000/-(Rupeesseventy five thousand} only) in^{favour ol thc 2"'1 respondentThe petitionershall also turnish} anurrder.takingthathewillnotalienateorcl-rangethephysicalfeatures of the^{vehicle.The2"'r respondentshallwrite to the RTA authority} not to transfer^{the said vehicle in favour ol any thirdparrywithout} clearance^{fiomthe Excise Department' Needlessto say' release of the} said vehicre^{is subject to the ordersthat could be passed by the 2"d} respondent^{authority pursuant to the enquiry to be conducted underthe} provisions^{of the Excise Act'}

¶31

Miscellaneous^{petitions'pendingif any' shall stand closed' No}

¶32

order^{as to costs'}

¶33

sD/'r.sRlNlvAS / ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE coPY/', c-t' SECTION^OFFICER

¶34

¶35

to,.,. ,nu principal secretary, Excise Department, state of relangana'^secretariat'

¶36

, ?il:"J3B?,t,^{commissionerof Prohibition and Excise' Nalsonda' Nalsonda} 3. ?i'rt'51;ti".^{House officer'Mothev Police} -sitiPi'^{suryapet District} i. cj"i, -b-c tt sri uaxmaiii'kanirriii' eo'ocel:-Lollfi t",. the state or relansana ; YwI d6tio oCtor.^{Prohibition and Excise' ntgn} ^ -'^{+t*tASfonJ?y..1"rn"'} at Hvderabad' IOUTI^{Hish courtror the state or relansana}

¶37

Two'CD^CoPies

¶38

One^{SPare CoPY}

sln

r-'

HIGH COURT

DAfED:0211112021

ORDER

WP.No.2748S ot 2021

rHE SI4
(o
''Q5 ((,(
{s I o irott:il c
)/
<br>

¶46

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶47

c\ 1\ ,

Pesara Gopal Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pesara Gopal Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

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

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

Sri. Tunuguntla Venkata Ravi Krishna Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and another

Dacha Laxmi Narsaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Banothu Veera Vs The State of Telangana, And 2 Others