Telangana High Court
WP/40512/2014 of Chirra Mallaiah Vs The State of Telangana on 30 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT PETITION No.40512 of 2014 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj (Telangana) appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana) appearing for respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRARAOWRIT PETITIONNo.40512 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 petitioners,learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj(Telangana) appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, learned Government Pleader forRevenue (Telangana) appearing for respondent Nos.4and 5 and the learned Government Pleader for Home(Telangana) appearing for respondent Nos.6 and 7.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in this WritPetition is that respondent Nos.3 to 7 have seized thepetitioners’ vehicles bearing Regn. Nos.TS-05EC-7346and TS-05EC-7347 and AP-22X-5420 and AP-22X-5421being Goods Carriage (tractors & trailers) without followingany procedure and that the said seizure is illegal andarbitrary.
3. It is not disputed that the seizure isgoverned by G.O.No.186 dt.17-12-2013 which modifiedthe earlier Rules regulating quarrying and transportation ofsand.
4. The amended Rules, notified in
G.O.Ms.No.186
dt.17-12-2013, prescribe a penalty for the first and second offences and, thereafter, for the confiscation of the vehicleafter following the procedure stipulated therein. Even incases where a vehicle is sought to be confiscated, theofficer who seizes the vehicle is empowered to direct itsrelease under Rule 9-Q (6) on execution of a bond by theowner hereof for production of the vehicle so released asand when directed by the Competent Court. Proceedingsfor confiscation can be instituted in cases where theoffences which have been committed are for three ormore times.
5. In view of the amended Rule 9-Q (1) (i) and(ii), read with Rule 9-Q (6), the petitioners are permitted tosubmit applications to the officer, who seized the vehicle;the said officer shall, within three days from the date ofreceipt of the application; examine whether the vehiclewas used in committing the offence for the first and thesecond time; and, if so, consider directing release of thevehicle on payment of the prescribed penalty. If, on theother hand, the vehicle is found to have been used in thecommission of the offence, for three or more times, theofficer concerned shall consider directing release of thevehicle, in accordance with Rule 9-Q (6), on a bond beingexecuted by the owner of the vehicle for its production asand when directed by the Court.
6. The entire exercise, culminating in an orderbeing passed, shall be completed within three days from the date of submission of the representation by thepetitioners; and necessary action shall be taken forrelease of the vehicle, in cases falling within the ambit ofRule 9-Q (1) (i), on payment of the prescribed penalty;and, in other cases, on a bond being executed in terms ofRule 9-Q (6) of the Rules. Similar order has also beenpassed in W.P.No.15938 of 2014 on 11-06-2014.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions
pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.
___________________________________
JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAODate :30-12-2014 Vsv/*