This dispositional order addresses a writ petition seeking release of a seized maxi cab vehicle after a traffic check. The High Court noted that the vehicle had already been released under an interim order dated 16.03.2023 and granted no further order.
None granted; Petition disposed as no further orders necessary in view of existing interim order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[32s6 ]
lN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 7399 OF 2023
Between:
Mohammed Azeem, S/o. Mohammed Akram, Aged about 34years, Muslim, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No. 19-4-3641331 , Chirag All Nagar, Kishan Bagh, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, Telangana State.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
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 preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent in not releasing the petitioner's Maxi Cab Vehicle bearing R.No. TS-12-UA-8916 seized under Vehicle Check Report No. TS933/AUG2O2213775 dated 20-08-2022 by the 3rd Respondent, as per law laid down by the Honble High Court as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to forthwith release the Petitioner's Maxi Cab Vehicle R.No. TS-12-UA-8916, in the interest ofjustice and grant.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleased to direct the 2nd respondent to release the Petitioner's Maxi Cab Vehicle bearing R.No.TS-'12-UA-8916 seized under Vehicle CheckReport No. TS933/AUG202213775 dated 20-08-2022 by the 3rdRespondent, forthwith to the petitioner, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRIRAJANIKANTHJWALA
Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR TRANSPORT
The Court made the following:ORDER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 7399 of 2o23
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is hled with the following relief:-
"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in not releasing the petitioner's Maxi Cab Vehicle bearing Registration No.TS 12 UA 8916 seized under Vehicle Check Report No.TS933/AUc2O2213775 dated 20.O8.2O22 by respondent No.3 as per law laid down by this Court as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently direct respondent No.2 to forthwith release the petitioner's Maxi Cab Vehicle..."
No.TS933/AUG2O22/3775 dated 20.08.2022 and found the following irregularities on plying the vehicle:-
2
CVBR, J wp_7399:2023
i.:
'It is submitted that in similar circumstances, order dated 22.06.2022 was passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2022 tn W.P.No.2b525 ol 2022.
I lzooo; < ero sot 1oa.1
3
CVBR, J wp 7399 2023
I I
tl i
{! I
In view of the same, subject to payment of admitted tax and compound fee, the vehicle may be released, but the assessment proceedings may go on, and the penalty imposed may not be recovered for a period of 3O days, as imposition of penalty is appelable, if no appeal is preferred or no order is obtained, the penalty becomes liable to be paid.,
1
CVBR, J wp_7399_2023
the interim ordcr, dated 16.03.2023. No costs
shall stand closed
//TRUE COPY//
SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTAN'REGISTRAR ( -.-lD
SECTION OFFICER
GJP
wk
HIGH COURT
DATED:1 510612023
ORDER
9 oF TEi
'il
-/
.*&
+
.:-)
s
$
..) 4ois + o
WP.No.7399 of 2023
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
q
\ir
\ 6
?*
9 gG
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition requiring release of a seized maxi cab vehicle requires any further orders given that a prior interim order remains operative.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Saleem Tours and Travels v. Joint Transport CommissionerReferred¶39
Saleem Tours and Travels v. Joint Transport Commissioner and others
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohammed Azeem
State of Telangana
District Transport Officer
Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector
C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
