Patalapu Chiranjeevi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 January, 2025

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Patalapu Chiranjeevi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 January, 2025

                                   1
                                                                   BSB, J
                                                    W.P.No.31573 of 2024


APHC010605302024
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI             [3311]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

             MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY
                TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

                               PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

                     WRIT PETITION NO: 31573/2024

Between:

Patalapu Chiranjeevi                                  ...PETITIONER

                                 AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others         ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

   1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

The Court made the following:
                                         2
                                                                          BSB, J
                                                           W.P.No.31573 of 2024


ORDER:

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is

filed seeking the following relief:

“….to issue a writ order or orders more particularly one in the
nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of 2nd
respondent in passing the order-cum-notice, vide
Rc.CS1/6A/141/2024, dated 21.12.2024, directing the
petitioner to furnish Bank Guarantee of Rs.6,85,000/- for
releasing the Mahindra Bolero Pick up FB CBC PS 1.7 TXL
Good carriage vehicle bearing No.AP 39 UB 6448, as illegal,
arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of
Constitution of India, and consequently set aside Rc.CS1/6A/
141/2024, dated 21.12.2024, by allowing the petitioner to
furnish 3rd party immovable property security as a surety for
releasing the Mahindra Bolero Pick up FB CBC PS 1.7 TXL
Good carriage vehicle bearing No.AP 39 UB 6448 belonging
to petitioner and pass such orders or other orders deemed fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Sri M.Sai Teja, learned counsel representing Sri Madhava

Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is as follows:

a. The petitioner is resident of Uttara Bazar, Pernamitta village,

S.N. Padu mandal, Prakasam District. He purchased the vehicle
3
BSB, J
W.P.No.31573 of 2024

bearing No.AP 39 UB 6448 on Hire Purchase Agreement and eking out

his livelihood by plying the said vehicle for transportation of goods.

While so, on 06.11.2024, while the petitioner was transporting rice bags,

the 3rd respondent had inspected the vehicle and found the rice bags

inside the vehicle and concluded that the vehicle was found illegally

transporting the PDS rice and the said rice is PDS rice belonging to

M/s. Nagaraja Traders and seized the said rice and vehicle under the

cover of a panchanama.

b. The petitioner filed petition, dated 18.11.2024, before the 2 nd

respondent seeking direction to release the seized vehicle bearing

No.AP 39 UB 6448. The 2nd respondent issued order-cum-notice, vide

proceedings Rc.CS1/6A/141/2024, dated 21.12.2024, directing the

petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.6,85,000/- towards

security for releasing the seized vehicle.

c. The petitioner is a poor person and eking out his livelihood by

running the vehicle. The petitioner purchased the seized vehicle under

a Hire Purchase Agreement from private finance and the petitioner and

his family are depending upon the income derived from running the

vehicle. If the vehicle is not released, his family would suffer irreparable

loss and hardship.

4

BSB, J
W.P.No.31573 of 2024

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the condition

imposed for release of the vehicle is onerous, as the petitioner has to

pay monthly instalments to discharge the loan secured to purchase the

vehicle. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish any

immovable property as security, but the petitioner cannot furnish bank

guarantee for Rs.6,85,000/- as directed in the impugned order.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies

placed on record written instructions, which are replica of the impugned

order.

6. Since the petitioner is unable to get release of the vehicle in spite

of passing the order on 21.12.2024, keeping the vehicle idle may

damage it further and cause loss to the petitioner. The purpose of

imposing the condition for interim custody of the vehicle is to secure the

same as and when required by the authorities. The same can be

achieved by imposing an alternative condition instead of bank

guarantee.

7. In the above circumstances, the condition imposed by the 2 nd

respondent to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.6,85,000/- is

modified by directing the petitioner to furnish personal or third party’s

immovable property for the value of the seized Mahindra Bolero Pick up

FB CBC PS 1.7 TXL Goods Carriage vehicle bearing No.AP 39 UB
5
BSB, J
W.P.No.31573 of 2024

6448 as security to the satisfaction of the 2nd respondent/District

Collector, Civil Supplies Department, Prakasam District, with an

undertaking that the person offering security will not alienate or create

any charge over the property pending the proceedings under the

provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and on acceptance

of such surety, the same shall be forthwith informed by the accepting

authority to the concerned District Registrar or the Sub-Registrar for

their record purpose.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________ ___
B.S. BHANUMATHI, J
Dt.20-01-2025
RAR