Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Machanuru Sudheer vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 20 January, 2025
1
BSB, J
W.P No.31556 of 2024
APHC010605422024
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: 31556/2024
Between:
Machanuru Sudheer ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. ANASURI ESWAR SAI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The Court made the following:
2
BSB, J
W.P No.31556 of 2024
ORDER:
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly one in
the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd
respondent issued endorsement dated 28-12-2024 vide
Ref.No.I(2)/476/2024 directing the petitioner, i.e., owner of the
vehicle bearing No.AP 16-TE-3219 to produce Bank
Guarantee for Rs.6,00,000/- being the cost of seized stock,
along with an undertaking that he shall not alienate or alter the
vehicle and he shall produce the same as and when required
by the Joint Collector, Kadapa as illegal, improper, arbitrary
and without any power of authority under law and violation of
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and to pass such
other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the
respondents.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
a. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP16-TE-
3219 and the vehicle is being used for transporting rice from one place
to another. While so, on 04.12.2024, the 4th respondent/Enforcement
3
BSB, J
W.P No.31556 of 2024Deputy Tahsildar, Badvel Mandal, YSR District, had inspected the
vehicle bearing No.AP16-TE-3219, at Vijjivemula Veera Reddy College,
Mydukur Road, Badvel Mandal, YSR District, on the allegation that the
vehicle was found illegally transporting the PDS rice and seized 30,310
kgs of rice. Thereafter, the seized vehicle along with the stock was
handed over to the 3rd respondent/The Tahsildar, Proddatur Mandal,
YSR District, and in turn, the 3rd respondent handover the vehicle to the
5th respondent/Sub Inspector of Police, Badvel Urban Police Station,
Badvel.
b. The petitioner filed petition, dated 10.12.2024, before the 2 nd
respondent/Joint Collector, Civil Supplies Department, Kadapa, YSR
District, seeking direction to release the seized vehicle. The 2 nd
respondent issued endorsement, dated 28.12.2024, vide Ref. No. I(2)/
476/2024 directing the petitioner to produce bank guarantee for a sum
of Rs.6,00,000/- being the cost of the seized vehicle along with an
undertaking that he shall not alienate or alter the vehicle and he shall
produce the vehicle as and when required by the 2nd respondent.
c. The petitioner is a poor person and eking out his livelihood by
running the vehicle. The petitioner purchased the seized vehicle under
hypothecation with private finance and he has to pay Rs.10,000/- every
month towards instalments. The petitioner and his family are depending
4
BSB, J
W.P No.31556 of 2024upon the income derived from running the vehicle. If the vehicle is not
released, his family would suffer irreparable loss and hardship.;
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.6,00,000/- 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 10.12.2024, 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.6,00,000/- is
5
BSB, J
W.P No.31556 of 2024
modified by directing the petitioner to furnish personal or third party’s
immovable property for the value of the seized vehicle bearing
No.AP16-TE-3219 as security to the satisfaction of the 2 nd respondent/
Joint Collector, Civil Supplies Department, Kadapa, YSR 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
[ad_1]
Source link