Telangana High Court
Syed Saleem S vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 31 March, 2022
Bench: T.Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.16546 of 2022
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare
the action of the 2nd respondent in not directing the 3rd respondent to
release the Vehicle UILTRA Goods Carriage-DCM bearing Registration
No.KA-01-AM-370, with Chasis No.MAT764011J7C05584, Engine No.
5LNGDICR17BRY501972, was seized in connection with FIR No.5 of
2022 dated 04.01.2022 on the file of Maripeda police station, as
illegal, arbitrary, abuse of process of law, violation of principles of
natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Telangana State
Excise Act with a consequential direction to release the said vehicle.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government
Pleader for Excise appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and
learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.3,
and with their consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and
disposal at the stage of admission.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the subject
vehicle and plying the same on hire by engaging a driver; that without
his knowledge and authorization, the driver used it for carrying black
jaggery and Alum; that the respondents-authorities seized the above
vehicle for illegal transportation of 5000 kgs of Black Jaggery in 100
bags, each containing 50 kgs, and 200 kgs of Alum in 4 bags, each
containing 50 kgs, and registered a case against the driver of the
vehicle along with others, in Crime No.5 of 2022 on 04.01.2022; that
petitioner is willing to furnish a third party security to the extent of
the value of the vehicle; that in spite of the readiness expressed by
him, the respondents, in particular the 2nd respondent, is not
directing the 3rd respondent to release the said vehicle; and that the
said action of the respondents-authorities in seizing the vehicle and
keeping it in open place, resulting in damage to the said vehicle, is
contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai V/s. State of Gujarat1.
4. The petitioner further contends that in similar circumstances,
this Court directed release of the vehicle on certain conditions and the
petitioner is similarly placed.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the
notice of this Court a similar order passed in W.P.No.14663 of 2020,
dated 03.09.2020, wherein this Court directed the petitioner therein
to approach the 2nd respondent, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, by
making an application and on such application being made, directed
the said authority to consider the said application within a time frame.
6. Learned Government Pleader for Excise appearing for
respondents does not dispute the above said fact. However, he
submits that the subject vehicle involved in the crime, belongs to the
(2002) 10 SCC 283
State of Karnataka; that there is every possibility of the vehicle not
being produced before the authorities in connection with the
investigation into the above crime; and that in the event of this Court
directing release of the said vehicle, sufficient safeguards should be
imposed to ensure that the vehicle is produced as and when required
in connection with the above crime.
7. Taking note of the submissions, since this Court, in similar
circumstances, had directed release of the vehicle, having regard to
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai (1 supra), this Court is of the view that the petitioner should also
be directed to comply with the conditions laid down herein subject to
which the respondents shall release the vehicle.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the
respondents, in particular respondent Nos.2 and 3 to release the
vehicle UILTRA Goods Carriage-DCM bearing Registration No.KA-01-
AM-370, with Chasis No.MAT764011J7C05584, Engine No.
5LNGDICR17BRY501972, subject to condition of the petitioner
furnishing Fixed Deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty
thousand only) in favour of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner shall
also furnish an undertaking that he will not alienate or change the
physical features of the vehicle. The 2nd respondent shall write to the
RTA authority not to transfer the said vehicle in favour of any third
party without clearance from the Excise Department. Needless to say,
release of the said vehicle is subject to the orders that could be passed
by the 2nd respondent authority pursuant to the enquiry to be
conducted under the provisions of the Excise Act. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition
shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_____________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date: 31.03.2022
MRKR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No. 16546 of 2021
31.03.2022
MRKR
