Allowed

Vanaja Malthumeda, v. The Principal Home Secretary, Secretariat

Telangana HC12 Dec 2025WP/33771/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police detained the petitioner's Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle during routine checking without registering any case or formally seizing it under a statutory provision. The court found the police records misdescribed the vehicle and directed verification of ownership documents and release of the vehicle to the petitioner.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vanaja Malthumeda, Vs The Principal Home Secretary… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁸⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 33771 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vanaja f,4althumeda, W/o Lale Venkateshwar Rao, Age^{41 years,} Occ.^Housewife, No 3-2-27,1 Floor, Nimboli Adda, Kachiguda, Hyderabad-27

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Principal Home Secretary, Secretariat, The State of Telangana

¶12

2 Commrssioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad,^-

¶13

Deputy Commissioner of Police, Gandhinagar,

¶14

4 lnspector of Police, Gandhinagar Police Station,^-

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 lssue a writ of mandamus or order and more^{particularityin nature of} direction to the Respondents for^{illegat, arbitrary} and^{unlawful action of} respondent No.4 by keeping illegal retention of the^{Pulsar220 DTS-BSllltVotor} Cycle of Bajaj Auto ltd., on^{4-01-2013 with temporary Registration No- AP 09} VNTR 7092, without any authority in the custody^{respondent No.4as such it} cannot be said as illegal.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 43529 OF²⁰¹⁵⁾

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleased direct} the respondents no.4 to release^{the Pulsar220 DTS-BSIll Motor Cycle of Bajai}

¶19

Auto ltd., on 4-01-2013 with temporary Registration No AP 09 VNTR 7092 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.SAMEER KUMAR

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI B.SRINIVAS, ASST.Gp F f,R HOME

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT I{YDERABAD

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAXRISHNA REDDY

W.P.No.33771 of 20l5

DATE: L2.12.2O25

Between:

Smt' vanaja Malthumeda

¶29

...^petitioner

¶30

AND

¶31

The Principal Home Secrctary,

¶32

Secretary, the State of Telangana and three^o,n.."..

¶33

*""rondents

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

This writ petition is filed seeking the^following

¶36

relief:-

¶37

'....to issue a writ of mandamus or order arrd more particularity in nature of direction to the Respondents for illegal, arbitrary and unlau.{ul action of respondent^{No.4 by} keeping illegal retention of the Pulsar 220 DTS-BSIII^Motor Cycle of Baj aj Auto ltd., on 04 01-2013 with temporary Registration No. AP O9 VNTR 7092,^without aly^authorityin the custody respondent No.4 as such it cannot be^saidas illegal, and pass. . .^"

¶38

Heard Mr. Sameer Kumar Aitharaju, learned^counsel

¶39

for the petitioner and Mr. Bhuvanagiri^{Sridhar, learned}

¶40

¶41

-I

¶42

Assistant Governmerrt Pleader for Home ap rearing on behalf of respondents.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner woulcl r ubmit that the petitioner purchased a pulsar 220 DTS I iSIII Motor Cycle of Bajaj Auto Limited (temporary Regis -ration No AP-09-VNTR-7O921, from Vinayaka Automolr: .es private Limited, Kachiguda, on 04.01.20 l3 and th:, the said vehicle was hvpothecated with Hinduja Leylr L rd Finance Limited, Hyderabad. It is contended that tl L, petitioner filed various documents such as temporan. -egistration certihcate, tax receipts and sale certificate of the motor cycle 1n support of his claim which sho,,,,r ttrat the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle.

¶44

It is further stated that on IO.OT.2Ol5, u I en the son of the petitioner parked the said motor cycle n: rr Su,eekar Hotel, Kachiguda X Roads, Hyderabad, ,r€ police constable by name Sreekanth, who came in ptr .in clothes, took away the motor cycle without anv alrt roril,r, and directed him to approach the Gandhinagar pol ce Station. Upon, being informed of the same by the ;on of the

¶45

¶46

¶47

petitioner, the petitioner went to the Gandhinagar Police Station and requested the police to handover the vehicle. Despite repeated approaches to the police station by the petitioner, the vehicle was not released to him on one ground or the other.

¶48

It is further stated by the petitioner that the respondent/ police had kept the vehicle in an open place and that continued retention of the vehicle in such an open place would expose it to damage and deterioration causing irreparable loss. It is also stated that the subject vehicle was purchased on finance and that having waited for a considerable period, the petitioner was left with no alternative but to approach this Court seeking a direction to the police authority for release of the subject vehicle.

¶49

Respondent No.4 has placed on record the written instructions dated 12.1 1.2015. A perusal of the said written instructions discloses that the subject vehicle bearing temporarlr Registration No.AP-O9 V-7O92 is presently in the custody of the police. It is the case of the police that during routine vehicle checking within the

¶50

¶51

limits of Gandhinagar Police Station at Kave diguda, on lO.O7.2Ol5. the rider of the said vehicle riz s allegedly found driving in a rash a_nd negligent manr ( r and that upon noticing the police per-sonnel, he abiu rdoned the vehicle at the spot and fled there from. It is alsr stated that the respondent/ police had brought the vehicle t: the police station, kept the same in the custody of respc nderrt No.4 and enquiries were made w-ith regard to thr: r t hicle. It is further stated in the instructiorrs that the pre; :nt address relatirrg to the vehicle is as follows:

¶52

"Mr.Papi Reddy, son of Buchi Recic,. , R/o. Nalgonda Mandal. This is Ap-09-V-79012 Eicher Motor Vehicle".

¶53

On the basis of the above said informat.ior , it is stated that the vehicle stands in the name of one Ir,4 r papi Reddy and that the vehicle was allegecl to have been rr mulactured by the Eicher Motors. However, upon a carejr I pt:rusa1 of the materia-l available record, it is errident th a t the subject vehicle in fact is a Pulsar 220 DTS BS-lll notor cycle manufactured by Bajaj Motors Limited. Tl e erforesaid discrepancl, clearly demonstrates that the infr>rmation

¶54

¶55

relied upon by the respondent/police does not correctly or accurately relate to the subject vehicle.

¶56

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no case was registered in respect of the subject vehicle nor was the vehicle formally seized under any statutory provision. It is therefore, urged that the police had no authority in law to retain the vehicle in their custody. It is further contended that such unauthorized retention resulted in substantial loss to the petitioner, who continues to bear the hnancia_l burden arising out ol the vehicle having been purchased on finance.

¶57

9 . Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that upon enquiries made by the police, it was found that the son of the petitioner by name, Mr.Garesh is allegedly involved in several criminal cases relating to chain snatching and that as many as twelve (12) cases were registered against him in various police stations within the limits of Hyderabad and Cyberabad and that the police are in search of him. It is

¶58

¶59

further submittecl that till^{date, no person had r.pproached} the police authorities seeking^{t'elease of the sub. t ct vehicle.}

¶60

1 O. It is categorically stated in the^{writteni rstructions} tl'rat the petitioner never^{approached the poli<:, nor made} any request for release^{of the vehicle. It showever,} assured by respondent No.4^{through u'ritten nstructions} that the police are ready^{and willing to releast lhe vehicle,} provided the petitioner^{produces all} the^{relevarI documents} pertaining to the ownership of subject vehicle.

¶61

I 1. At this juncture, learned counsel for t I :^petitioner submits that all the relevant documents I ted by the petitioner along with the writ petition, clearly er tablish that the subject vehicle stands ir-r the name of the 6 etitioner. It is stated that the petitioner filed various docr ments such as copies of the temporary registration certifica Le issued by the then Anclhra Pradesh Transport Departmt: rt, including tax receipt. application of registration of mo -, ,r vehicle in form 2O & 2l , sales certificate etc., al of which cumulatively establish that the subject vehic.l: is ovvned by the petitioner.

¶62

¶63

This writ petition was filed in the year 2015 and no interim orders were passed by this Court. The subject vehicle remained in police custody for a considerable period. Although, the police have stated that the police were ready and willing to return the vehicle, upon production of documents, the vehicle continued to remajn in custody of police during pendency of the writ petition, resulting in deprivation of the petitioner,s property.

¶64

On consideration of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that respondent No.4 shall verify all the relevant documents which were already filed along with the writ petition and forming part of the record and thereafter release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner upon submission of a written representation enclosing originals of all the relevant documents. However, keeping in view of lapse of considerable period, it is ctarified that if the petitioner is not unable to produce the original documents relating to the vehicle, the police shall not insist upon production of such originals, except for the limited purpose of verifying the identity of the petitioner, for which

¶65

¶66

the petitioner shall^{produce anv one of the orq} inal^identity particulars i.e ., Aadhar card,^{Drivinglicense rr any other} valid identity proof.

¶67

Accordingly. the^{writ petition is allorr :d with the}

¶68

a-foresaid observations.^{There shall be no order as to costs.}

¶69

Pending miscellaneous applications.^{i aly,shall}

¶70

stand closed

¶71

-SD/.C. DEEPIKA A: SISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Home Secretary, Secretariat, The Stat,:^{:f Telangana}

¶76

2 The Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderab:^{J, -}

¶77

3 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Gandhinagar,

¶78

The lnspector of Police, Gandhinagar Police Station

¶79

One CC to SRI A.SANIEER KUMAR, Advocate. [OP- ]l

¶80

o. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of^Telangana. [OUT]

¶81

Two CD Copies.

BSK

HIGH COURT

DATED:1211212025

CC TODAY

t
-r STArt
z
'J 7 lEt, ?1?5 r)
-<br>+,
.,.
* Dr, . :AT(' rl

¶88

ORDER

¶89

WP.No.33771 of 2015

¶90

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶91

rO
k c
..5
lP

Vanaja Malthumeda, v. The Principal Home Secretary, Secretariat

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vanaja Malthumeda, v. The Principal Home Secretary, Secretariat

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd.Yaseen, Vs The State of Talangana

Nethavath Goliya, Warangal Dist and Another Vs Banoth Lachya, Warangal Dist and 2 Others

Shaik Saleem Vs Sri Shaik Masthan and Another

Sk. Nagur Shafi Vs Gangavaram Sundarshanreddy

Syed Mahmood, Hyderabad and 1 Other Vs the Vice-Chairman, Hyderabad and 1 Other

M/s.Sri Nidhi Foods, Vs The State of Telangana