T.Sampath Reddy v. The Regional Transport Officer, Medchal & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 11480 OF 2011 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in seizing the vehicle bearing No.AP-22-V-9484 vide vehicle check report No.0247263 dated 20.04.2011, is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Transport appearing respondents. The vehicle check report shows that the vehicle in question was seized only on the ground that it was overloaded. In identical circumstances, this Court disposed of Writ Petition No.7350 of 2011 holding as under:
The Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder provide for levy of penalty to the extent of Rs.1000/- per tonne of overload. The continued seizure of the vehicle, that too, in a loaded condition would cause heavy damage to the vehicle. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the respondents shall release the vehicle in question by collecting the overload penalty. Such collection of penalty, shall, however, be without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to take further steps in accordance with law, after release of the vehicle. The respondents shall also return the original documents pertaining to the vehicle, if taken from the petitioner, duly retaining copies thereof. There shall be no order as to costs.
Since it is not disputed before this Court that the petitioner herein is also similarly situated, the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the above directions in W.P.No.7350 of 2011. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 21.04.2011 Note:- Issue operative portion by wire at party’s costs. (B/O) Ivd
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 21 Apr 2011. The bench was G ROHINI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.