Telangana High Court
WP/40301/2014 of K. Jangaiah, Vs The State of Telangana on 30 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO W.P.No.40301 of 2014 ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj (Telangana) appearing for 1st respondent, learned Government Pleader for Home (Telangana) appearing for 2nd respondent and learned
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAOW.P.No.40301 of 2014
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
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learnedGovernment Pleader for Panchayat Raj (Telangana) appearing for1[st]respondent, learned Government Pleader for Home(Telangana) appearing for 2[nd]respondent and learnedGovernment Pleader for Revenue (Telangana) appearing for 3[rd]respondent.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition isthat 2[nd] respondent has seized the petitioner’s vehicle lorrybearing No.AP-29-TB-2223 being Goods vehicle (lorry) withoutfollowing any procedure and that the said seizure is illegal andarbitrary.
3. It is not disputed that the seizure is governed byG.O.No.186 dt.17-12-2013 which modified the earlier Rulesregulating quarrying and transportation of sand.
4. The amended Rules, notified in G.O.Ms.No.186dt.17-12-2013, prescribe a penalty for the first and secondoffences and, thereafter, for the confiscation of the vehicle afterfollowing the procedure stipulated therein. Even in cases where avehicle is sought to be confiscated, the officer who seizes thevehicle is empowered to direct its release under Rule 9-Q (6) onexecution of a bond by the owner hereof for production of thevehicle so released as and when directed by the CompetentCourt. Proceedings for confiscation can be instituted in caseswhere the offences which have been committed are for three ormore times.
5. In view of the amended Rule 9-Q (1) (i) and (ii), readwith Rule 9-Q (6), the petitioner is permitted to submit anapplication to the officer, who seized the vehicle; the said officershall, within three days from the date of receipt of the application;examine whether the vehicle was used in committing the offencefor the first and the second time; and, if so, consider directingrelease of the vehicle on payment of the prescribed penalty. If, onthe other hand, the vehicle is found to have been used in thecommission of the offence, for three or more times, the officerconcerned shall consider directing release of the vehicle, inaccordance with Rule 9-Q (6), on a bond being executed by theowner of the vehicle for its production as and when directed by theCourt.
6. The entire exercise, culminating in an order beingpassed, shall be completed within three days from the date ofsubmission of the representation by the petitioner; and necessaryaction shall be taken for release of the vehicle, in cases fallingwithin the ambit of Rule 9-Q (1) (i), on payment of the prescribedpenalty; and, in other cases, on a bond being executed in terms ofRule 9-Q (6) of the Rules. Similar order has also been passed inW.P.No.15938 of 2014 on 11-06-2014.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Nocosts.
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,shall stand disposed of.
Date :30-12-2014 kvr
___________________________________
JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO