THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31035 of 2014 Dated: 16.10.2014 Between:
Ramanati Srinivas .. Petitioner and The District Collector, Warangal, Warangal District, and another.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Civil Supplies (T.S.) The court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not releasing the petitioner’s lorry bearing registration No.AP20 TA 9999 in pursuance of judgment dated 30.09.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to release the confiscated lorry.
I have heard Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (T.S.).
The petitioner’s lorry referred to above was seized along with rice. Proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated. By order dated 25.08.2014 in E.C.A.C.No.93 of 2014, respondent No.1 has ordered confiscation of the seized rice as well as the lorry. While no appeal was filed against the order of confiscation of rice, the petitioner has field Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2014, under Section 6-C of the Act, in the Court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, questioning the confiscation of lorry. The learned Sessions Judge, vide his judgment dated 30.09.2014, allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the order of confiscation of the petitioner’s lorry. The petitioner is stated to have made an application before respondent No.1 on 08.10.2014 for release of the lorry. As no action has been taken on the said representation, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
From a perusal of the judgment of the Sessions Court, Warangal, it is clear that the confiscation order passed by respondent No.1 was set aside and the lorry was directed to be released. No doubt, the limitation period for filing a revision petition against the said judgment has not expired. However, the lorry was seized as far back as 05.07.2014 and since then it is in the custody of the respondents. Having succeeded in the criminal appeal, equity warrants that the lorry is released to the petitioner, however, without prejudice to the right of the respondents to question the judgment of the Sessions Court by filing a revision petition.
In order to secure the interests of State, it is appropriate that the petitioner deposits original registration certificate with respondent No.1 and also files an undertaking that he will not change the nature and character of the vehicle or create any third party interest therein and will surrender the vehicle in the event the respondents succeed in the revision petition. On receipt of the original registration certificate and the undertaking from the petitioner as mentioned above, respondent No.1 shall issue a certified copy of the registration certificate to the petitioner and release the lorry, by making an endorsement that the original registration certificate is deposited with him by the petitioner. It is made clear that such release of the lorry shall be subject to further proceedings that may be instituted by the respondents against the judgment of the Sessions Court. It is further made clear that if a revision case is not filed within the period of limitation, respondent No.1 shall return the original registration certificate to the petitioner.
Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.38797 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th October, 2014 IBL