The High Court held that a petitioner seeking the release of a seized vehicle must first approach the competent authority (Joint Collector) before seeking writ relief, directing the release of the vehicle upon furnishing security.

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 a Writ, Order direction or more particularly one In the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 6th respondent in seizing the petitioner vehicle bearing NO. AP 39 TQ 2076 Ashok Lay land Dost basing on the proceedings of the 5th respondent vide Rc No. n7/CS/2026, dated 6.3.2026 through the Tahsildar, Gannvaram by kept the vehicle in the custody of the 6th respondent police station in connection with Crime No. 69 of 2026 dated 06.03.2026 is Illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violation of Articles T9 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 6 to release the seized vehicle of the petitioner vehicle bearing No. AP 39 TQ 2076 Ashok Layland Dost to the petitioner forthwith in the interest of justice and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Direct the respondents 2 to 6 to release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing NO. AP 39 TQ 2076 Ashok Layland Dost immediately seized in connection with FIR No. 69 of 2026 dated 06.03.2026 on the file of the 6th respondent, pending disposal of the main writ petition, and to pass

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Declaring the action of the 6th respondent in seizing the petitioner’s vehicle bearing No.AP 39 TQ 2076 Ashok Lay Land Dost basing on the proceedings of the 5th respondent vide Rc.No.117/CS/2026 dated 06.03.2026 through the Tahsildar, Gannavaram, by keeping the vehicle in the custody of the 6th respondent police station in connection with Crime No.69 of 2026 dated 06.03.2026, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri M.S.P.Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri T.Niranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similar issue as in this writ petition has already been dealt by this Court in writ petition vide W.P.No.3586 of 2026 and the same was disposed of on 09.02.2026 and the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order in that writ petition and prayed to pass similar orders.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that the subject vehicle was seized by the 6th respondent Station House Officer and the petitioner, having alternative remedy, without approaching the competent authority has filed the present writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. In the Judgement relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner therein first approached the Joint Collector and filed the writ petition wherein this Court directed the Joint Collector to release the seized vehicle. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner did not approach the Joint Collector before knocking the doors of this Court. As such, to meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order:

“The petitioner is at liberty to move an appropriate application before the Joint Collector for release of the vehicle.

On such application, the Joint Collector is directed to release the vehicle bearing No. AP 39 TQ 2076 subject to the pet