Dismissed

Syed Aslam Patel v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Telangana HC15 Feb 2022WA/65/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by a appellant challenging the dismissal of a writ petition regarding the seizure of his vehicle. Relying on Ram Kishan Fauji, the court held that LPA is not maintainable in criminal cases, thus dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed without costs; miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed.

Syed Aslam Patel Vs The State of Telangana… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶5

,AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶7

WRIT AP PEAL NO: 65 0F 2022

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause i.5. ol^t!9_Lelters patent preferred against the order dated 3010412021 passed in W p No^.19037 of ZOZO on tfre tL of the High Court.

¶9

Betwee n:

¶10

Syed Asram Pater. s/o. Sved -rnayatari, Aged about 26 years, occ. owner of Ashok Levrand Lorry bearino rub.rs i2-un^'o7id ril"e++,^ry"1i oiJ r"H,,'ilciit6',lpp" (Rural) Bidar, now ore-senry,esioing at H.N-o.id-"i-"qisrctz B, Aman Nagar Bhivan, Charminar, Bahadurpura. nyOeraOaS.-'

¶11

...APPE LLANT/PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telanoana, Rep. by its principal Secretary, Consumer Affarrs. Food a nd civit S up"pties su"iuL'il"i e riid i',ij, iii"ru oro

¶14

The Collector (Civil Suoplies), Nalgonda District, lntegrated Collectorate, Nalgonda.

¶15

civil supplv officer, Nalgonda District, rntegrated colecrorate,

¶16

t I:[]tJ::t 4 The Assistant District Civil Supply Officer, Nalgonda District, lntegrated Collectorate, Nalgonda.

¶17

5 The Deputy_Tahasildar (CS), peddavoora Mandal, O/o. DCSO Office. tntegrated Coilectorate, at Nalgonda Nrjgo;Ja districi -"-- ",,'"",

¶18

The Station House Officer, peddavoora police Station, peddavoora, Nalgonda District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶20

l.A.NO: 1 oF 2022

¶21

Petition Under section 151 cpc praying that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit-filed in support of the petition, t" Higr, court may be preased to !.i3q9nse^{with firing of certifiedcopyof commonordei dated} 30.4:2021'pir.Lo in W.P.No.19037 of 2020.

¶22

|.A.NO: 2 OF 2022

¶23

Petition Under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the peiitio;, Ir,e Hign court may n" p6r.uo to suspend the common order dated 30.4.2021 in so far ai it rerates to w.P.No.19037 of 2020 on the fire of this Hon'bre court, pending aisposrr or above writ a ppeal.

¶24

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI.S.SATYANARAYANA

¶25

counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : spl.Gp FoR crvrl supplrEs

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : G.p FOR HOME

¶27

The Court made the following JUDGMENT

¶28

AND

¶29

THE HON'BLE CHIEF^{JUSTICESATISHCHAN DRA SHARMA}

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{ABHINANDKUMAR SHAVILI}

¶31

WRIT APPEAL No.65 of²⁰²²

¶32

JUDGMENT: (Per lTon'bte Si Justice Abhinand^{KumarShauilt)}

¶33

This Writ Appeal has^{been filed by the appellant} aggrieved by the order^{dated 1,3.04.2021 passedby the} learned Judge in Writ Petition^{No.19037 of 2O2O'}

¶34

Heard Mr. S. Satyanarayana,^{learned counsel for} the appellant; learned Special^{Government Pleaderfor} Civil Supplies, appearing^{onbehalf oflearned} Additional Advocate- Genera,l,^{for respondentNos.1 to} 5 and learned Government^{Pleader for Home, for} respondent No.6.

¶35

It has been contended^{bv the appellant that he} had filed Writ Petition^{No.19037 of 2O2O before this} Court praying the following^reiiefs:

¶36

lo isslte a Writ, order or direclion^ntore parlicularly one in the nature of^{Mandamusdeclaringthe actiono;[}

¶37

)

¶38

HCJ & AKS,J wa_65_2O22

¶39

the respondent^{No. 6 in seizingAshok Leyland LorrybearingNo'} TS-12-UA-6748^{v,ith ChassisNo MBiCMDWOGR\0g543seized} under cover of^{panchanama in Crime No l0l of 2020 on the rtk oJ-} Pecldavoora Police^{Station, NalgondaDistrict on the grottnd that} the said lorry^{is lransporlingthe PDSrice us illegctl' arbitrul':and} con.sequently ttt^{clirect ,urpo.n'iu'rNo 6 ttt releusetheAshok} Le1,!6,r,1 Lorr-';^{heurittg No TS-12-UA-67"16tt'irh Chttssi's} No.\181L'MD\/CXARI09513^{seized unclcr thecorero/} panchanttmtr in^{CrimeNt't. t 0l o.[ 2020 on the} '/ile^{ol Petlduro<tru} Policc Station, Nalgondtt^District"

¶40

By order dated^{30.O4'2021,learnedJudge'} without appreciating^{any of the contentionsraised} therein, had^{mechanicallydismissed the Writ Petition'}

¶41

Learned counsel^{for the appellantcontendedthat} the said writ^{petitionwas filed to declare the action of} respondent No.6^{inseizing Ashok Leyland Lorry} bearing No.^{TS- i2-UA-6748 withChassisNo'} MBICMDWCXAR1O9S43^{under cover of Panchanama} in Crime No.101^{of 2O2O on the file of Peddavoora} Police Station,^{Nalgonda District, as illegaI and} arbitrary.

¶42

During the^{courseof submissionsby the learned} counsel for appellant,^{this Court specificaliy asked the}

¶43

HCJ & AKs,] -') wa_55_2022

¶44

appellant whether a crime is registered against the appellant, i.e., Crime No. 101 of 2020 and uhether the same was stiil pending

¶45

Learned counsel lor the appellant did not deny about the pendency of Crime No. 101 of 2O2O on the file of Peddavoora Police Station, Nalgonda District and that the appellant's vehicle rrn as seized in pursuance of the said crime number.

¶46

.a 7. This Court, after i having considered the

¶47

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered vieu, that the Letters Patent Appeal is not available in respect of criminal cases and the same u,as decided ir-r a decision reported in Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryarta and othersl u,herein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

¶48

"62. In view of the aJbresaid prisntatic reasoning, the irresistible conclusion is that the Letters Palent Appeal was not mainlainable before the Division Bench and, consequently, the order passed therein is v'holly unsustainable and, accordingly, it is set aside. Hovever, as the State had been diligently agitctting its grievctnce in a legul .fbrum which it lhought h?td jurisdiction, we gant liberty lo

¶49

' 1:o^{r zy s s.c.c.s::}

¶50

H C-] & AKS,.] wa 65 2022

¶51

¶52

tlrc Stttlc lo^{tr.ss'ttil/he rtrtler of thc lturnttlSin'glc 'ltrlgc in} (rLorduilc( tith luv.

¶53

In view of ruling^{of the SupremeCourt, as stated} supra, this Court^{is not inclinedto entertain the Writ} Appeal arising out^{of Crime No.10i of 2O2O on the file} of Peddavoora Police^{Station, NalgondaDistrict'}

¶54

No costs.

¶55

8 Writ Appeal is accordingly^dismissed.

¶56

9 As a sequei, miscellaneous^{applications pending} if any in this Writ^{Appeat,sha11stand closed}

¶57

SD/-M.VIJAYA BHAS DEPUTY RE IS ,TRUE COPY'

¶58

¶59

SECTION OFFICER

¶60

' L1lr8sff?f ?J3# crvrL suPPLrES, Hish court for the state of reransana

¶61

' Iffi"r"rft::filiP-^{HoME' Hish courtror the Stateor rerangana} at 3. One CC to SR|.S.'SATY 4. Two CD Cooies ANARAYANA, Advocate tOpUCj 5. One spare iopy

¶62

SA SB .,\V

HIGH COURT

DATED:1510212022

JUDGMENT

WA.No.65 of 2022

1 1rc - i.1
<br>(
e
c ,0 4 F,Pt 2022
,7Y
a.j

¶68

DISMISSING THE W.A

¶69

WITHOUT COSTS. /v
X
x

Syed Aslam Patel v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Aslam Patel v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Venkatachary S/. Rajarajm Vs The Karimnagar -Addilabad Milk Producers Co-Operative-

Mohd. Ghani, Vs The Depot Manager

Toodi Bharat Ratna Vs Telangana State Human Rights Commission (Tshrc)

K.N.Chary Vs the Presiding Officer and Another

Jahangir Pasha Sk Vs The Chairman and another

Jayanagar Colony Welfare Association Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh