HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.1393 OF 2014 DATED:13.11.2014 Between:
K.S. Reddy … Appellant And Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary Mines & Geology Department Secretariat Hyderabad and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.1393 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) The writ petitioner - appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge dt.21.10.2014 by which His Lordship has been pleased to pass the order, amongst others, for release of the vehicles of the petitioner, on condition. However, the condition cannot be fulfilled unless some measures are taken, as has been observed by His Lordship in the manner as follows:
1. “Respondent No.2 shall send a requisition to Motor Vehicles Inspector of the area along with a copy to the Regional Transport Authority requiring the Motor Vehicle Inspector to inspect the vehicles and process assessment of its approximate value to respondent No.2. The said exercise including assessment of value shall be done within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and the R.T.A. as well as the Motor Vehicle Inspector shall act accordingly as and when a communication is received from the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology.
2. On receipt of assessment, as above, by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology shall release the vehicle subject to petitioner depositing 50% of the value so assessed either in the form of cash or in the form of an irrevocable bank guarantee and the petitioner shall also file an undertaking before respondent No.2 that he shall produce the vehicle as and when called upon and required by respondent No.2 to facilitate the enquiry and shall also undertake that he shall not alienate or transfer the vehicles pending the enquiry aforesaid.
3. Since it is not on record as on today as to whether any crime is registered, the order of release passed herein shall be subject to the enquiry or orders of the learned Magistrate in case a crime is registered.”
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the aforesaid directions. However, in the grounds of appeal, some legal grounds have been taken by the appellant at ground Nos.8 and 9, which are quoted hereunder:
“8. With great respect the Hon’ble Single Judge should have seen that even assume that without conceding the case of respondent that the land owners were penalized by 10% penalty, that has no bearing on this appellant/petitioner, as he has hired vehicles upon the request of the land owner and it is the livelihood of the appellant/petitioner.
9. With great respect the Hon’ble Single Judge should have seen that in the similarly situated matters this Hon’ble Court imposed Rs.20,000/- penalty on each vehicle while disposing of the Writ Petition No.15284/2013 with a direction to undertake before 2nd respondent that he shall provide the vehicle as and when called upon and required by 2nd respondent to facilitate an enquiry.”
3. It does not appear whether the aforesaid points were urged before His Lordship. When we asked the learned counsel for the appellant, he says that he urged the same before His Lordship but no decision was taken. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents says that these points were not urged and actually the learned counsel for the writ petitioner appellant invited His Lordship to pass the impugned order as the learned counsel for the writ petitioner appellant thought that if affidavits are called for, release of the vehicle would be delayed.
4. We are inclined to believe the version of the learned counsel for the respondents when we read the grounds of appeal and the impugned order. No ground has been taken that despite having urged those two issues. The learned trial Judge did not consider this issue.
5. In any view of the matter, we think and conclude that this impugned order was passed at the invitation of the writ petitioner appellant, though not recorded specifically. We do not want to interfere with the impugned order. However, if the petitioner - appellant wants to get adjudication on the legal issues, which are urged before us, it would open for him to approach before His Lordship with appropriate proceedings, if so advised.
6. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J 13.11.2014
bnr