The State Of Telangana vs Chinnam Satyanarayana Alias ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3150 Tel

     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

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."

Meaning 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

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