IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.33620 of 2014 BETWEEN B.Ramesh Reddy AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, 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, in this case, complains that his vehicle bearing No.AP 04 TT 7557 was unauthorisedly seized by respondent No.2 on the directions of respondent No.3 and it is kept in the custody of respondent No.2 and it is not being released. According to the petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle, it is stated that the rice contributed by the general public was being transported in the petitioner’s vehicle to the cyclone affected area at Visakhapatnam District and it is not as if the rice was the one taken away from Public Distribution System and was being sold in black market.
Petitioner has, therefore, approached this court alleging that the vehicle, which belongs to the petitioner, is not being released in spite of his request.
3. The panchanama at the time of seizure dated 24.10.2014 by respondent No.2 shows that on the suspicion that the rice loaded in the vehicle is PDS Rice, the seizure was effected.
4. The instructions received by the learned Government Pleader from respondent No.3 also states that the driver is not able to produce any documents or permit and it is presumed to be a PDS rice which is illicitly transported for sale into black market.
5. Since the petitioner states that he is the owner of the vehicle and even the rice, which is seized is not PDS rice, there is no reason why the vehicle of the petitioner is not being released. Since the Tahsildar was not satisfied with the statement of the driver of the vehicle, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to approach respondent No.3 by making an appropriate application for release of the vehicle and he is also at liberty to satisfy respondent No.3 that the rice, which was being transported, is not PDS Rice, but meant for the benefit of cyclone affected people. If any such application is made by the petitioner, respondent No.3 is directed to consider the same expeditiously and pass appropriate orders thereon at least to the extent of release of the vehicle to the petitioner preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of the application.
With the above direction, 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 November 21, 2014 Note:-
Furnish copy by tomorrow.
{B/o} LMV