I N THE HI GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA DATE: 16.04.2026 BETWEEN :

1. Vakiti Praneeth Reddy & another … Petitioners And The State of Telangana, Transport Department Hyderabad & 3 others …. Respondents

O R D E R

Heard Sri Vemula Suresh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. The petitioners approached this Court seeking the prayer as under:

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in threatening to issue the endorsement cancelling the hypothecation in the R.C. Book pertaining to the Petitioners Three vehicles bearing Nos.TG09T- 1750, Nos.TG09T-1751 & Nos.TG09T-1753 covered by hypothecation at the instance of the 4^th Respondent pending consideration of the application filed by the petitioners on 10.04.2026 for settlement of account under one time settlement as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent not to accept any endorsement of cancellation of Hypothecation made by the petitioners pertaining to the three Vehicles bearing Nos.TG09T-1750, Nos.TG09T- 1751 & Nos.TG09T-1753 at the instance of 4^th respondent till final orders are passed on the one time settlement application made by the petitioners dt.10.04.2026 and not to release the vehicle without following due process of law and to pass such other order…”

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners had purchased three Ashok Leyland vehicles bearing Nos. TG09T-1750, TG09T-1751, and TG09T-1753 under a hypothecation agreement with the 4th respondent bank dated 26.02.2024. The Petitioners had been regularly paying EMIs, and the vehicles were commercially deployed for transportation of generators. On 10.12.2025, between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM, near Shamshabad Flyover, the petitioners’ vehicles were allegedly intercepted and forcibly taken away by persons claimed to be recovery agents of the 4^th respondent. Alleging illegal seizure contrary to law and guidelines, the petitioners had filed W.P. No. 34045 of 2025 before this Court. During hearing on 07.04.2026 in W.P.No.34045 of 2025, the 4th respondent stated that the vehicles had been auctioned, subject to payment by the purchaser.

Thereafter, on 10.04.2026, the petitioners had submitted an application for One Time Settlement to the 4th respondent and informed the 2nd respondent not to cancel the hypothecation endorsement. Apprehending that cancellation of hypothecation and release of vehicles would render their settlement application infructuous, the petitioners had filed the present writ petition seeking protection pending consideration of their application.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD.

DI SCUSSI ON AND CONCLUSI ON :

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the petitioners had filed an application before the 4^th Respondent Bank on 10.04.2026 seeking settlement of account under a onetime settlement scheme and that the said application is still pending consideration by the 4^th respondent bank. In the meantime, if the 2^nd respondent makes any endorsement by cancelling the hypothecation in the R.C. Book, pertaining to the Three Vehicles bearing Nos. TG09T-1750, TG09T-1751, and TG09T- 1753 covered by hypothecation, at the instance of the 4^th respondent, the application filed by the petitioners on 10.04.2026 for settlement of the account under a onetime settlement would be rendered infructuous.

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents brings on record written instructions vide R.No.TG09T1750/D2/2026 dated 15.04.2026 and submits that the grievance of the petitioners had already been addressed and a decision has already been taken not to make any endorsement in the R.C. Book for cancellation of the Hypothecation Clause, pending conside