IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.39396 of 2014 BETWEEN Mala Mareppa.
AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. K. SITA RAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT (AP) GP FOR HOME (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner is the owner of a Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.AP 21 TW 6833 and AP 21 TW 6834. The said vehicle was involved in an accident on 13.05.2013 regarding which Cr.No.47 of 2013 was registered under Sections 337, 338, 304 A of the Indian Penal Code at ISVI Police Station and the same is now pending trial in C.C.No.326 of 2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adnoi. Petitioner, in the meanwhile, disposed of the said vehicle in favour of one Basavaraju and requested the fourth respondent to issue No Objection Certificate to enable him to register the vehicle in the name of purchaser. Alleging that NOC is not being issued and that on the contrary, the fourth respondent declined to issue NOC under impugned order dated 28.05.2014 in view of pendency of the aforesaid crime, the present writ petition is filed.
2. Instructions received by the learned Assistant Government Pleader states that the vehicle is already released to the petitioner, however, the request for transfer cannot be considered in view of pendency of the aforesaid case.
3. Obviously, the criminal case is one for the offence punishable under IPC but not related to any Excise or Forest offences whereunder confiscation of vehicle is also contemplated. In the present criminal case, even if an order of conviction is passed against the petitioner, the vehicle, in question, would not be confiscated and at the same time, the petitioner, as owner, will be liable to punishment or fine or both. In that view of the matter, therefore, the refusal by the fourth respondent in issuing no objection certificate for effecting transfer of the vehicle of the petitioner in favour of the purchaser through the second respondent does not appear justified. However, the fourth respondent is at liberty to seek appropriate undertaking from the petitioner, as he deems appropriate, to ensure that in the event of conviction in the said criminal case, the petitioner’s liability thereunder is not diminished in any manner. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the fourth respondent for reconsideration in the light of the observations made hereinabove and thereafter, the fourth respondent shall pass appropriate orders on the request of the petitioner for grant of no objection certificate.
The writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 29, 2014 DSK