Telangana High Court
WP/44900/2016 of Kondala Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2016
SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT WRIT PETITION No.44900 of 2016 ORDER: Heard counsel for petitioner and Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.2. Petitioner complains against seizure of vehicles bearing Nos. AP 35T 7744 and AP 31TG 2052 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Counsel for
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT WRIT PETITION No.44900 of 2016
Heard counsel for petitioner and Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.2.
Petitioner complains against seizure of vehicles bearing Nos. AP 35T 7744 and AP 31TG 2052 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Counsel for petitioner relies upon the orders passed by this Court directing release of seized vehicles in accordance with the applicable Government orders.
. The Assistant Government Pleader submits that the vehicles are being produced before the concerned Magistrate and application is required to be made for release of the vehicles.
Counsel for petitioner submits that even if the vehicles are deposited before the competent Court, still the authorities are empowered to consider the request of petitioner for release of seized vehicles.
Having regard to above submissions, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:
“Policy decision is taken in G.O.Ms.No.3 dated 08.01.2015 and G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 19.02.2015 for release of vehicles, subject to a few conditions. Therefore, the petitioner is given liberty to bring the policy to the notice of the Court when his application is considered for release of vehicles. If a request for release is made to respondents, the respondents are given liberty to release the seized vehicles after examining their competence and jurisdiction to release the vehicles, if they are already deposited with the competent Court.”
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________
S. V. BHATT, J
Dt:29.12.2016
kdl