Telangana High Court
WP/40267/2014 of Sri Ponna Venkat Reddy S/o.P. Ram Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana, on 30 December 2014
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.40267 of 2014 Date : 30-12-2014 Between : Mr. Ponna Venkat Reddy .. Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Represented by its Commissioner of Civil Supplies Department and Ex-officio Secretary, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Mr. Bollam
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
W.P.No.40267 of 2014
Date : 30-12-2014
Between :
Mr. Ponna Venkat Reddy ..
Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,Represented by its Commissioner ofCivil Supplies Department andEx-officio Secretary, Hyderabad and others ..
Respondents
Counsel for petitioner : Mr. Bollam Lingaiah YadavCounsel for respondents : Government Pleader for CivilSupplies (TS)
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:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declarethe inaction of the respondents in releasing lorry bearingNo.AP-29-TA-8430 of Ashok Leyland make, pertaining to2010 model, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner is the owner of the above mentionedlorry which was seized along with 75 Quintals of ricesuspected to be meant for Public Distribution System(PDS). The petitioner moved an application beforerespondent No.2 for release of the lorry. By order dated 15-12-2014, respondent No.2 has declined to orderrelease of the lorry.
At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader forCivil Supplies (TS), on instructions, submitted that thepetitioner’s lorry was involved in illegal transportation of PDSrice on an earlier occasion for which a sum of Rs.1 lakh waslevied as penalty in lieu of confiscation; that in the appealfiled under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act,1955 (for short "the Act") the penalty amount has beenreduced to Rs.25,000/- and that the said amount has notbeen paid by the petitioner. Mr. Bollam Lingaiah Yadva,learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his clientwill pay the sum of Rs.25,000/- if the same has not alreadybeen paid.
Since the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act islikely to consume time, the continued detention of the lorrywill inevitably cause deterioration in its condition and alsovalue. A perusal of the panchanama shows that the valueof the lorry has been shown as Rs.5,00,000/-. In myopinion, the lorry is thoroughly undervalued as its value willnot be less than Rs.7 to Rs.8 lakhs considering the year ofits make i.e., 2010. Keeping this aspect in view, I feel itappropriate to direct release of the lorry to the petitionersubject to his furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.7lakhs pending conclusion of the proceedings under Section6-A of the Act.
For the above mentioned reasons, the impugnedMemo is set-aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to releasethe seized lorry to the petitioner subject to his furnishingbank guarantee for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees sevenlakhs) pending conclusion of the proceedings under Section6-A of the Act.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMPNo.50506 of 2014 is disposed of as infructuous.
________________________
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Date : 30-12-2014AM