Excerpt
A single-judge bench consisting of Honorable Justice Battu Devananda allowed the writ petition no. 7489 of 2021. The petition was filed by the Petitioner under article 226 of the constitution with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus to Respondent no. 3 in this case. Respondent number three passed an order directing the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000 as fixed deposit in favour of the respondent and for the interim custody of the vehicle. The petition stated that not allowing to release of the vehicle is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 19,21 of the Indian constitution.
Facts
In this case, the Respondents directed the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000 as fixed deposit receipt in any nationalized bank in favour of Respondent no.3 (The superintendent of police) and had also seized the vehicle. Petitioner has filed an application for the interim custody of the seized vehicle but his representations made no avail. The ownership of the seized vehicle by the respondents was not under dispute and the demand of an enormous amount of Rs. 2,00,000 as the fixed deposit is an unreasonable condition and the Petitioner is not in a position to furnish the same. Aggrieved by the said condition the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking direction from the Court to declare the action of the Respondents as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the said directions by giving directions to the respondents.
Arguments Advanced
The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted before the Court that an application has been filed by the Petitioner for the interim custody of the seized vehicle. There was no dispute about the ownership of the vehicle and the condition imposed by the 3rd Respondent (The superintendent of police) to furnish a fixed deposit receipt for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000 towards the value of the seized vehicle is an unreasonable condition and the petitioner is not in a position to furnish the same and prayed to relax the same.
The learned government pleaders appearing for the Respondents contended that the condition of the fixed deposit was imposed to protect the interest of the government.
Court’s Decision
The Court allowed the Writ Petition and the condition imposed by the Respondents was set aside. The Respondents were directed to release the seized vehicle for interim custody of the petitioner by taking collateral security for the value of the said vehicle from the Petitioner. The Petitioner was further directed that he shall not change the physical features of the vehicle and shall produce the vehicle whenever he is directed to do so by the lower Court. Any application pending shall also stand closed and no orders as to cost.
Click here to view the Judgement.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
