Allowed

Mohamad Abdul Raheman v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Sept 2022WA/297/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal challenging an order requiring submission of a full bank guarantee for the release of a seized vehicle. The High Court modified the condition, mandating a 50% bank guarantee and a 50% personal bond from the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Clause (a) of the conditions imposed by the lower court substituted to require 50% bank guarantee and 50% personal bond; Writ Appeal disposed of.

Mohamad Abdul Raheman Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HICH COURT FOR TT{E STATE OF TELANGANA AT II}'DER,{.BAD

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN . AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

\YRIT APPEAL NO: 297 OF 2022

¶8

Writ Appeal nnder clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal against the order dateA 22-03-2022 iL WP NO.l,t418 OF 2022 on the file of the High Court-

¶9

Bet\Ye€n:

¶10

Mbhamad Abdul^{Raheman,S/o.AbdulRaheem,} Age^about 39^years, occ Business, FJo. ILNo.l -35, Kamshetipally, Nachipally of Birkoor Mandal, Kamareddy Disaict, T.S. ' ...APPELLANT

¶11

AN'D

¶12

l. The State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Departmen! Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

Tlie Collector, (Civil Supplies) Nizamabad District T.S.

¶14

The Deputy Tahsildar, (Civil supplies) Dichipally ol Nizamabad District, T.S.

¶15

The Station House OfTicer, Police Station Dichipally, Nizambad District TS: 5. Mohamad Sadeeq, S/o.Mahamad Mahaboob , Age29 years. Occ Driver, RIo.H.No.9-202027, Auto Nagaq Nizamabad town, Nizamabad Dtrict, T.S.

¶16

..RESPONDENTS

¶17

IA NO : I OB 2022

¶18

Petition under Section l5l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiIed in supporr of the petition, the High Court may be pl'eased to dtect the respondent No.2 to release the seized vehicle Eicher No. APOlXl638260 in favour of the petitioner herein for interim custody

¶19

Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRl MR BOGGULA RAJU

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents 1,2&3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶21

Counsel for thp Respondent 4: CP FOR HOME

¶22

The Court made thc following: OI{DER

¶23

TH Ir [ION'BLE THE CIJIEF IUSTICE IIAI, HI.-rt-AN AND

¶24

THE HO N'BL E SRI IUSTI CE C.v.B HAS REDDY w.A.No. 97ot 2022

¶25

JUDGMENT. d>er^the tTot'bk the Cbief Iuttiv UllblBhryaa)

¶26

Heard N{r. B.Raju, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Jyothi Kiran, learned Government pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondents No.1, 2 and3.

¶27

2,^{- 'fhis} rvrit appeal is dLected against the orde r d,ated 22.03.2022 passcd by the leamed Single Judge drsposing ot W.P.No. 14418 of 2022 fi1ed by the appellant as rhe writ petitioner.

¶28

.) C)rdcr: cri the learned Single Judge dated 22.03.2022 rcads as

¶29

under:

¶30

'I his writ petidon is filed seeking a rvrit of mandamus directing thc respondent No.2 - Colleoor (Civil Supplies) to release the vchicle zi-, Eicher No.Apo1X163g260, which was seized in connecriorr rvi dr Crime No.41 of 2022, regSstered by respondent No.4 - Starion Housc ()fficcr, Dichpally police Station, Nizamabad Districr, rrn 05.03.2022. frrr rhc <>ffences under Section 420 of lpC and Secdon 7 o[ thc L:ssr:ntial Commodities Act, 1955 (for short .^{'the :\ct')}

¶31

l,carncd counscl for thc pctitioner has drawn the attention of this Courr ro rhc orclcr datcd 21,.02.2022 passed by this Court in

¶32

------.: \ -.\ \

¶33

W.P.No.9248^{ri2022'whetein'this Court has drectedthe} authorities^{to releasethe vchiclcs by imposingcertainconditioos'} Having^{regatd to the order dated 2l 'A2'2022passedin} W.P.No.9248^{of 2022'without gorng into the meritsor demerits o[} the case,^{this Writ Petition is disposedof directing the respondeot} No.2toreleasethesubjectvehicleafterobtainingthevaluation certificate^{ftom the Motor Vehicle Inspectorconceroed' subiect to} the following^conditions:

¶34

a)^{-t'he pctiuoner sha1l furnish Bank Guaranteefot an amount}

¶35

,^{- valued by the Nlotor Vehicle lnspector collcerned;} b) I1c^{shall furnish undertakingin writing that he will not} al.ienatc^{or changettrc physicai featutes of the subiect vehicle;} c) Ile^{shallproduce the subiectvchicle wheneverrequired;}

¶36

d) Hc^{shallfurnish the copies of R'C' Book of the subiect} vehicle^{anddrn'inglicensc of the driver;}

¶37

e) Thc^{respondentNo'4-stadonHouse Officershallwflte to} the RTA^{authoritiesnot to entertainany applicationto transfer} the^{vehicle in questionon arry third party's name without} clearance^{from the Civil SuppliesDeparunent;}

¶38

. I T'he release^{of the vehicie shall be subiect'to the orders to be} passed^{in the cnquiry uodetSection6-A of the Act/prosecution} of Crime^{No'4112022ofDichpallyPoliceStation'} Nliscellancous^{petitionspendrng'if any' shall stand closed'}

¶39

Therc^{shall be no orderas to costs'}

¶40

learned^{counsel for the parties and on due}

¶41

1. ,\fter^hcartng consideration,^{wc are of the view that clause(a) of the conditions}

¶42

::3::

¶43

imposcd by the learned Singie Judge, as exrracted supra, is cluite stiff; the same is required to be modified, which will nonetheless protecr the interest of the State as well.

¶44

Accordingly, clause (a) of the conditions imposed by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 22.03.2022 in '07.p.N o.1441g of 2022 is subsriruted by the following

¶45

O^{Peritioner shallfurnish bank guarante} e for 50ok of rhe amounr 'o[ thc r.ehicle 21., Eicher No.ApOlXl63g260 valued by the motor vehicle inspector concerned. a(ii) F-or the remaining 50%, petitioner shall furnish a bond ro respondent No.2.

¶46

6 Subject to the above modification, the writ appeal is disposcd of. No costs.

¶47

As a sequcl, miscellaneous petitions, . pending il any, stand

¶48

closed.

¶49

Sd/- B.^SATAvATIII DEPUTY^REGISTRAR

¶50

//TRUE^COPY//

¶51

V,, SF,CI'ION^OFFICER

¶52

¶53

)t. The Princioal il ;:;ii;J';;Jcivil^{Secrelary. dupplies) Nizamabad Civil SupptiesDepartmentSecrcturiat' Distnct r'S'T S ' Ilyderabad'} l The DcDUn^Tahsildar, tCivif^{suppi[si Dichipally of Nizamabad District' T S'} 4 iii: ;;l.i ;;;6ih:;''^{poriliituiion Dicniiatrv'Nizamhadnistnct' rS} 5 Mohamad ir"""., N."-"u^{Sadeeq,S/o'Maha*"Jft'fJ"t""U' town,NizamabadDtrict' T O"" SOtluet' RIo.H'No 9-20-2027' Auto} 6. ;;: ct'; ;RinR^{BdcGULA RAru Advocatc [oPUCl} 1 Two CCs to^{Gp FOR} 'FoR^CIVII Hor"rr'^{Si-litit-f.'rES,} High co"rt^irigft fo-r thc statc^{C";n forrlre} orl'clangana^{Srateof 'lelangana [OUTI} [our] ;;: &: i;^;;

¶54

9 'frvo CD CoPics

HIGH COURT

HCJ &

CVBRJ

DATED:0210912022

o{onn

WA.No.297 of 2022

:il E STAI6
o.
s<br>q
1 1 t'l0\J ?[2? +-,
O
A'
.<br>* Ir- .-. i.ii:.

¶63

WA IS DISPOSED WITHOUT COSTS

Mohamad Abdul Raheman v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamad Abdul Raheman 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

M/S. Binjusaria Extractions Ltd., Vs State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Hyd.( Now Tsrtc) Vs M. Ashalu

M/s. Ace Tyres Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner and 2 others

The Distance Education Council,Indira Gandhi National Vs a.P.State Council for Higher Education

Nala Bazar Residents Welfare Association Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana