Votte Raju, v. State Of Telangana,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE S.V.BHATT W RI T PETI TI ON No.4 0 2 3 7 of 2 0 1 6 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.2 2.

Petitioner complains against seizure of vehicles bearing Nos.TS 02 UB 2394, TS 02 UB 3294, TS 02 UB 3249 and AP 29 V 8459 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

3.

Counsel for petitioner relies upon the orders passed by this Court directing release of seized vehicles in accordance with the applicable Government orders.

4.

The Assistant Government Pleader submits that the vehicles are being produced before the concerned Magistrate and application is required to be made for release of the vehicles. 5.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that even if the vehicles are deposited before the concerned competent Court, still the authorities are empowered to consider request of petitioner for release of vehicles.

Having regard to the above submission, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:

Since policy decision is taken in G.O.Ms.No.3 dated 08.01.2015 and G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 19.02.2015 for release of vehicle, the petitioner is given liberty to bring the same to the notice of the

Court when his application is considered for release of vehicles. However, the respondents are also at liberty to release the seized vehicles by keeping in mind the competence and jurisdiction to release the vehicles if it is already deposited with the competent Court. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

____________ S. V. BHATT, J December 1, 2016 DSK