Krishna Chakala v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE T.VI NOD KUMAR WRI T PETI TI ON No.3339 of 2020 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondents in detaining the Glamour Motor Cycle bearing registration No.TS08 FE 6160 of the petitioner and to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home for respondents.

3.

The case of the petitioner is that he is not the owner of the vehicle in question and that on 19.01.2020 at 22.44 hours, when he reached Parvathi Nagar locality, a suburb of Madhapur Traffic Police jurisdiction, the 3rd respondent and other constables who were deployed there to check vehicles and to determine whether the drivers of those vehicles were in inebriated condition or not, stopped him and subjected him to breath analyzer test and alleged that he is in an inebriated state and seized his vehicle, and that the said vehicle is presently lying at Madhapur Traffic Police Station in the open space and he was also issued with e-challan mentioning violations under Sections 185 (a) and 130/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the M.V.Act'), which are not applicable to drunk and driver cases. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to detain his vehicle. 4.

Learned Assistant Government for Home, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle but, 19.01.2020 at 22.44 hours, was found driving the vehicle and when he reached Parvathi Nagar locality, a suburb of Madhapur Traffic Police jurisdiction, the respondent police stopped him and subjected him to breath analyzer test and found 239 alcohol reading and since the petitioner was not in a position to drive the vehicle and as he did not produce the relevant documents, the police authorities have taken safe

custody of the vehicle temporarily and placed the vehicle at the 3rd respondent police station by exercising powers under Section 207 of the M.V.Act. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that from the documents annexed to the writ petition it is clear that the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle and the name of one Chakali Padma is shown as the registered owner of the vehicle in question as per the certificate of registration issued by the Transport Department of Telangana. He would further submit that if the petitioner and the owner of the vehicle in question along with their proof of identity and relevant documents of the vehicle appear before the concerned police authorities with whom the vehicle is in safe custody and on paying the prescribed fine, the vehicle would be released to the owner of the vehicle.

5.

Having regard to the above said submissions and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to appear before the 3rd respondent authority along with the owner of the vehicle with proof of their identity and relevant documents of the vehicle in question. Upon the petitioner and the owner of the vehicle approaching the 3rd respondent or other official, who has the safe custody of the vehicle in question and making an application for release of the vehicle together with relevant documents, the said authority shall consider the same and release the vehicle to the owner forthwith by collecting fine as prescribed under the M.V.Act for non-production of documents and also if such vehicle is not involved in any other case. 6.

Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

_____________________ JUSTI CE T.VI NOD KUMAR Date:27.02.2020 grk