Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 14144
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DR VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J
NEDAMANURI SURESH – Appellant
Versus
THE GOVERNMENT OF A P – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 24463/2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S M SUBHAN
For the Respondents: GP FOR HOME
Seizure of property without due process is unlawful, violating principles of natural justice.
Headnote:The petition filed under Article 226 contends that the seizure of property by the 2nd respondent without adherence to Section 100(5) C.R.P.C. was unlawful. The petitioner claims violation of natural justice principles. The Court disposed of the Writ Petition based on the submissions made. The main issue framed was whether the action taken was just and lawful. The Court held the action was improper and thus ruled against it, leading to the final order of no costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. property seizure without due process is illegal. (Para 1) |
| 2. submissions made for disposal of the petition. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. final decision to dispose of the petition. (Para 4) |
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of -MANDAMOUS- declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in seizing the property of the petitioner and handing over the same to the 3rd respondent without following due process of law prescribed under Section 100 (5) C.R.P.C., is illegal, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice and as such liable to be set aside with a consequential direction to return the seized property to the petitioner forthwith and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following:
ORDER
The instant Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
“ .... to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of -MANDAMOUS- declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in seizing the property of the petitioner and handing over the same to the 3rd respondent without following due process of law prescribed under Section 100 (5) C.R.P.C., is illegal, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice and as such liable to be set aside with a consequential direction to return the seized property to the petitioner forthwith and pass ....”
2. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, would submit that since the subject matter relates to gutka and would squarely covered by the orders passed by this Court from time to time and that no further orders are necessary and this Writ Petition may be disposed of by passing appropriate orders.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that recording the above submission, this Writ Petition may be disposed of.
4. Considering the submission, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
