K. Pramod Kumar, v. The State Of Telangana,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI WRIT PETITION No.38085 of 2017 ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief: "to direct the 2nd respondent to grant interim custody of Tractors and Trailers bearing nos. TS 28 T 1884, Truck No. TS 28 T 1883 & tractor bearing nos. TS 28 6456, Truck No. TS 28 T 1885 to the petitioner pending disposal of the Writ petition in due process of law."

[Reproduced verbatim] 2.

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the 1st respondent and of the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the 2nd respondent. I have perused the material record.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner first submitted that the vehicles were seized while transporting sand. He next submitted that the terms of the G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 19.02.2015, are applicable and the petitioner is entitled to seek release of the vehicles from the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent is empowered to release the vehicles and that the issue is covered by many decisions of this Court. 4.

However, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that after seizure of the vehicles, case in FIR No.430 of 2017 was registered by the Station House Officer, Khanapur (H) Police Station, Khammam District, for the offences punishable under Sections 447 & 379 of IPC on 01.11.2017. He, however, would submit that there are no instructions as to

whether the seizure of the vehicles is reported to the Court of the concerned Magistrate and instructions are awaited in that regard. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as on today, the vehicles are not produced before the Court of the concerned Magistrate and that even if the vehicles are produced before the competent Court, still, as per the terms of the afore-stated G.O., the 2nd respondent is the concerned authority and is empowered to consider the request of the petitioner for release of the seized vehicles in matters of this nature as per policy decision taken by the Government.

5.

Having regard to the submissions and the terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 19.02.2015, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: 'The petitioner is at liberty to approach the learned Magistrate in case the vehicles are produced before the learned Magistrate and file an application as per the procedure established by law and seek release of the vehicles by bringing to the notice of the Court the policy decision taken by the Government and the terms of the G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 19.02.2015, if the petitioner so desires; or, in the alternative the petitioner may make a request to the 2nd respondent by filing appropriate application for release of the vehicles; and, if any such application comes to be filed before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent is at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per terms of G.O.Ms.No.

15, dated 19.02.2015, after examining the competence and jurisdiction to release the vehicles, in the event the said vehicles are produced before the Court concerned.' It is needless to state that the application, if any, filed by the petitioner before either the Court or the 2nd respondent shall be disposed of on the same day in the interests of justice.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI Date: 13th November, 2017 KL

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI WRIT PETITION No.38085 of 2017 Date: 13th November, 2017 KL