Allowed

Juttika Venkateshwararao v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Telangana HC4 Apr 2023WP/36446/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-release of a seized vehicle. The vehicle was seized under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 pending criminal proceedings. The Court directed the release of the vehicle subject to the petitioner furnishing a fixed deposit receipt equivalent to the vehicle's value and providing an undertaking to produce it whenever required until proc

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.3 to release the petitioner's vehicle, subject to the petitioner furnishing a fixed deposit receipt equivalent to the value and executing an undertaking to produce the vehicle w

Juttika Venkateshwararao Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTTCE J.SREENIYAS RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 36446 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Juttika Venkateshwara Rao, S/o.Juttika Satyanarayana, Aged about 32 years,'Occ ; Driver, R/o.3-38, Ramannagudem, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh -534426.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Secretariat Build ings, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Divisional Forest Officer, Nirmal Division, Nir.mal District.

¶14

The Forest Range Officer, Bhainsa Division, Nirmal District.

¶15

The Chief Wild Life Warden, Hyderabad

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 not releasing the petitioner vehicle i.e. Mahindra Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing No.TS 28T 8727 was ceased in POR No.47O7 of 93 dated 61212022 by the 3rd respondent as interim custody to the petitioner as being illdgal arbitrary and contrary to law and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to release the Mahindra Bolero Pickup bearing Registration No.TS 28T 8727 in favour of the petitioner.

¶18

|.A.NO:1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Ceurt may be pleased to direct the Respondents to release the seized Bolero vehicle bearing No. TS 28 T 8727 in connection with the POR No. 4707193, dt. 1010212022 of respondent police pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.M.V.VENU

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents : AGp FOR FORESTS

¶22

The Court^made the following ORDER

¶23

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.36446 of 2O22

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This writ petition is frled seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in not releasing the petitioner's vehicle i.e., Mahindra Bolero Pick Up vehicle bearing No. TS 28 T 8727 seized in POR No.47O7 /93 dated 06.02.2022 by respondent No.3 for interim custody to the petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 2l of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to release the subject vehicle in favour of the petitioner.

¶27

Heard Sri M.V.Venu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.l to 4.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 seized the vehicle of the petitioner without following the due procedure under the prbvisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972(hLerein after referred to as the Act' for brevity) and the vehicle is \ under *- his custody sincc 06.o2.2o22. Learned counsel

,.?:.

<br><br>\

t". : ,.

,^.'i

for the petitioner requests the Court to direct the respondent No.3 to release the vehicle.

¶36

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that respondent No.3 after following the due procedure as contemplated under the Act, seized. the vehicle. The proceedings POR No.47OT /93 for the offences under Section 9 R/w Sections 2(16), 50 and 51(1X1A) of Wild Life(Protection) Act, 1972 is pending before Judicial First Class Magistate Court at Bhainsa and the petitioner is not entitled to seek release of the vehicle in the present writ petition.

¶37

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties, the writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.3 to release the petitioner's vehicle i.e., Mahindra Bolero Pick Up vehicle bearing No.TS 28 T 8727, subject to the condition of petitioner furnishing Fixed Deposit Receipt from any Nationalized bank equivalent to the value of the vehicle assessed by the Motor Vehicle lnspector and also giving an undertaking not to create any third party rights and also to produce the vehicle

¶38

¶39

whenever required by the concerned officer tilr the proceedings are

¶40

ftnalized

¶41

6 with the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶42

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition,

¶44

shall stand closed.

¶45

,/TRUE COPY/'

¶46

SD'.T.SRIMVAS DEPUTY REGITtRAR q/

SECTION OFFICER

--^L--1--Lrt..:rJ:--^ ,

¶52

--^L--1--Lrt..:rJ:--^ , 1. The^{Principal Secretary, Forest Department, secretariatBuildings, state of}

¶53

Telangana^{at HYderabg9-,}

¶54

Z. in"^{ffiirionil fot"stOfficer, Nirmal Division, Nirmal District.}

¶55

in" For"rt^{ningeOfficer, Bhainsa Division, Nirmal District'}

¶56

i. The^{ChiefWild [ife Warden,Hvderabad}

¶57

Two^{CCs to'bplon-Fone'st's, High Court tor the State of Telanganaat}

¶58

Hyderabad.IOUTI

¶59

oirJcc^{to SRl.M.v'vENU,Advocate[oPUCl}

¶60

Two^{CD CoPies}

SA ,/

Ls{ c,

HIGH COURT

DATED 10410412023

ORDER

1 6f-- STn 14'
.}
o)
0 E rP$ 2[8
L)
* 1'r i-

WP.No.36446 of 2A22

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

,lrf^:;- l.

Juttika Venkateshwararao v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juttika Venkateshwararao v. The State of Telangana and 3 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

Kakarla Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Kurakula Sai Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Sk. Ishrath Khan, Vs The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary

G.Madhusudhan Reddy Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Enti Venkateswarlu, Vs State of Telangana

Smt. Guthula Satyavathi Vs The State of Telangana