IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.30861 of 2014 BETWEEN Pathlavath Mohan AND ... PETITIONER 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.
2. Petitioner seeks to question the order passed by respondent No.3, dated 26.07.2014, wherein his request for interim custody of the vehicle seized by the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise, Rajendranagar Mandal, bearing No.AP 28 TE 3320 as having, prima facie, involved in crime No.38/2014-15, dated 11.04.2014, was rejected. Petitioner states that he had approached the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, seeking interim custody of the vehicle pending the appeal before the Commissioner. The said request of the petitioner was considered by the Deputy Commissioner and under order dated 26.07.2014 the request of the petitioner for release of the vehicle was declined primarily on the ground that petitioner was unable to deposit the value of the vehicle i.e., Rs.3,20,000/- as fixed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. The seizure of the vehicle for the offence involved is a subject matter, which is required to be gone into in the proceedings pending against the petitioner for the said crime. However, since the vehicle was seized as early as on 11.04.2014, keeping it idle would not be in the interest of either of the parties inasmuch as the value of the vehicle would diminish if it is lying unused for longer length of time.
3. In the circumstances, therefore, keeping in view the value of the vehicle, as determined by the Motor Vehicle Inspector at Rs.3,20,000/-, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing release of the said vehicle to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner shall deposit 50% of the value of the vehicle in cash before respondent No.4.
2. Petitioner shall also furnish bank guarantee to the extent of balance 50% of the value of the vehicle in favour of respondent No.4 and keep the said bank guarantee alive, pending adjudication of Crime No.38/2014-15.
3. Subject to fulfilling the above two conditions by the petitioner, respondent No.4 shall release the vehicle to the petitioner. Respondent No.4 shall also obtain an undertaking from the petitioner that he will not alienate or alter the vehicle and will produce the same whenever required and called upon to do so by respondent No.4 for the purpose of the aforesaid crime.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 16, 2014 Note:
Furnish copy within two days.
{B/o} LMV