Telangana High Court
WP/26447/2007 of P. Tangaraj Reddy S/o Raj Reddy Vs The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, on 26 December 2007
OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA * * * WRIT PETITION No.26447 of 2007 Between: P. Tangaraj Reddy … Petitioner Versus The Deputy
IN THE HIGH OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN
P R E S E N TTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA* * *
WRIT PETITION No.26447 of 2007
Between:P. Tangaraj Reddy … Petitioner Versus The Deputy Director of Mines & GeologyGuntur, Guntur District & Anr. … RespondentsCounsel for the Petitioner: SRI NARAHARI BABUCounsel for the Respondents: GP for MINES &GEOLOGY THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA* * * WRIT PETITION No.26447 of 2007
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.
O R D E R :
Heard the counsel.
2. Sri P. Narahari Babu, the learned counsel representing thepetitioner states that the seizure effected is without jurisdiction.petitioner states that the seizure effected is without jurisdiction.
3. The learned Asst. Govt.Pleader however would submit thatthere is a penal provision and penalty can be levied.there is a penal provision and penalty can be levied.
4. It is needless to say that the respondents are at liberty toinvoke such powers relating to imposition of penalty if therespondents are inclined to do so.
5. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus, declaring theaction of respondents in seizing the vehicle bearing no.AP-16 TU-6105 of the petitioner without following any procedure understatute as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 19 and 21 of theConstitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents torelease the vehicle from the custody of second respondent and topass such other suitable orders as this Court may deems fit andproper in the interest of justice.
6. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed insupport of the writ petition.support of the writ petition.
7. In the light of the facts and circumstances, in-as-much-as, therespondents are not empowered to seize the vehicle in question.respondents are not empowered to seize the vehicle in question.
Let the respondents release the vehicle bearing no.AP-16 TU-6105 to the petitioner forthwith. It is also made clear that therespondents are at liberty to take other steps if any if they areinclined to do so.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extentindicated above. No costs.
JUSTICE P S
NARAYANA. 10/12/2007.
NB:Furnish CC of the ordertoday.B/o. IsL.