IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.34917 of 2014 BETWEEN Jakka Ashok and others AND ... PETITIONERS The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader, who has received instructions.
2. The impugned order itself shows that the vehicles, in question, viz., three tractors and two tippers were seized by the Inspector of Police, Bodhan, on 20.10.2014 alleging that the said vehicles were involved in extraction and transportation of sand without prior permission. The impugned order, however, states that the District Collector, Nizamabad, has issued instructions to impose Rs.1,00,000/- fine on each vehicle. Based on that, the impugned order confiscating the vehicles is passed by the Tahsildar.
Apparently, the confiscation order is without notice and without opportunity to the petitioners and hence, the vehicles cannot be confiscated and at best, they can be seized if there is any prima facie violation. Even otherwise, under G.O.Ms.No.186, Industries & Commerce (Mines-I) Department, dated 17.10.2013, Government has laid down a policy with respect to release of the vehicles by imposition of fine specified depending upon the nature of the vehicle and if the offence is first or second offence etc.
3. The order impugned to the extent of directing confiscation of the vehicles is, therefore, clearly unsustainable and to that extent, it is set aside. However, insofar as the seized vehicles are concerned, though the petitioners have annexed copies of the applications filed before respondent No.4 for release of the vehicles to this writ petition, there is no acknowledgment on any of the said applications. Hence, petitioners are at liberty to make fresh applications before respondent No.4 seeking release of the said vehicles and if such applications are filed before respondent No.4, he shall examine the same, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders preferably within a week from the date of receipt of the applications.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 20, 2014 Note:-
Furnish copy by tomorrow.
{B/o} LMV