THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.562 of 2021
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal has been filed by the State
of Telangana being aggrieved by an order dated
14.07.2021 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.P.No.22443
of 2020 by which the learned Single Judge has directed
release of the vehicle subject to the petitioner furnishing
Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.
The facts of the case reveal that the vehicle
belonging to the respondent was the subject matter of an
offence under the Forest Act and it was confiscated. A writ petition was preferred i.e., W.P.No.12212 of 2020 and the learned Single Judge on 07.08.2020 has passed the following order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Forests.
It is a case where the petitioner challenges the confiscation order dated 02.07.2020 made under the Forests Act. It is his case that he had filed an appeal on 25.07.2020 against the confiscation order along with a stay application, however, no orders were passed on the same.
As it is likely to take some time for passing orders on account of the COVID-19 situation, the petitioner prays for release of his vehicle pending passing of orders in the appeal, and the petitioner is 2 ready to abide by the conditions as may be imposed by this Court.
On the other hand, learned Government Pleader opposes the writ petition and submits that once confiscation orders are made, the right in the property vests with the State and in those circumstances, no release order may be made at this stage. Learned Government Pleader also submits that the appellate authority may be directed to dispose of the appeal within a time bound manner so as to give finality to the issue.
Having regard to the respective submissions, there being no dispute that confiscation order has been made and there being no dispute that, at this point of time on account of COVID-19 situation, it would take time for disposing the appeal, and as no useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle in the premises of respondent authority, exposing the vehicle to sun and rain which would deteriorate the value of the vehicle, in the light of the guidance of the Hon' ble Supreme Court in various judgments that seized vehicle may be released during pendency of proceedings by imposing appropriate conditions, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondent authorities are directed to shall release the vehicle of the petitioner i.e., TATA Vehicle bearing No.TS-18-T-1804, subject to the petitioner furnishing Fixed Deposit Receipt or Bank Guarantee for the value of the vehicle as assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector of Nirmal District.
Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that the release of vehicle is subject to the orders to be passed in the appeal pending before the appellate authority. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed."
3Meaning thereby, the vehicle was to be released subject to furnishing Fixed Deposit Receipt or Bank Guarantee for the value of the vehicle as assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI) of Nirmal District. The respondent before this Court did not challenge the aforesaid order and in fact, after disposal of the said writ petition, has again preferred a writ petition praying for the same relief. The writ petition is very much pending i.e., W.P.No.22443 of 2020 and the learned Single Judge has directed release of the vehicle subject to furnishing Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.
Learned counsel for the State of Telangana has argued before this Court that once there is an order passed by the learned Single Judge for referring the matter to the MVI of Nirmal District for assessing the value of the vehicle, in all fairness, the respondent should have approached the MVI of Nirmal District for assessing the value of the vehicle and, therefore, to that effect, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in a subsequent writ petition deserves to be modified.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that once there is an order for furnishing Fixed Deposit Receipt or Bank Guarantee for the value of the vehicle as assessed by the MVI of Nirmal 4 District, the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and it is ordered that the vehicle in question i.e., vehicle bearing No.TS18T-1804 be released subject to the respondent herein furnishing the Fixed Deposit Receipt or Bank Guarantee for the value as assessed by the MVI of Nirmal District.
The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on merits. So as far the main writ petition is concerned all the parties shall be free to canvass their arguments before the learned Single Judge in the main writ petition.
The miscellaneous applications pending in this writ appeal, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 01.11.2021 vs