ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Battu Devanand, J.
Kode Kiran – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 40411 of 2022
Decided On : 15-12-2022
Seizure - Release of Seized Vehicle - Direction to Release Seized Vehicle with Conditions
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the seizure of rice and a vehicle, and the initiation of proceedings under Section 6A by the competent authority. It referred to a recent order in a similar case.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the release of the seized vehicle in favor of the petitioner with certain conditions to protect the interest of the respondents, pending disposal of the 6A proceedings.
Issues: Seizure of vehicle, validity of seizure, direction for release with conditions
Ratio Decidendi: Considering the facts and circumstances, and in light of a recent order, the court found it appropriate and reasonable to direct the release of the seized vehicle with specified conditions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions to set aside the interim disposal order and release the seized vehicle in favor of the petitioner with specified conditions.
JUDGMENT
Battu Devanand, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and the learned Government Pleader for Home and perused the material available on record.
2. Having heard the respective counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is an admitted fact that subsequent to the seizure of the rice and vehicle, a proceedings under Section 6A are initiated before the 2nd Respondent, who is the competent authority. The illegality and validity of the seizure has to be decided by the 2nd Respondent in 6A proceedings.
3. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the latest order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Onteru Bhaskar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department and others 2022 SCC OnLine AP 348 in our considered opinion, it is appropriate and reasonable to direct the 2nd Respondent to release the seized vehicle in favour of the petitioner on imposing certain condition, to protect the interest of the Respondents, pending disposal of the 6A proceedings.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The interim disposal order in Rc.CS1/6A/130/2022, dated 26.11.2022, issued by the 2nd Respondent is hereby set aside.
(ii) The Respondents shall release the Mahindra Bolero 4-Wheeler bearing No. AP 39 UA 6924 in favour of the petitioner on condition of furnishing personal or third party immovable security property equivalent to the value of the seized stock in the said vehicle, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and
iii) The petitioner shall submit an undertaking stating that the seized vehicle shall not be alienated or mortgaged during pendency of the 6-A Proceedings.
5. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
The court has the discretion to direct the release of a seized vehicle with conditions to protect the interests of the parties involved.
The need to exhaust alternative remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226 for relief.
The court's decision was based on the need to consider the facts and circumstances of the case and a recent order by a Division Bench.
The court can grant interim custody of seized vehicles based on specified conditions, following the futility of keeping such vehicles at police stations for a long period.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.