Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- RAMESH RANGANATHAN
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In view of the above direction, the petition stands disposed of. 14th July, 2009 ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J
Judgment
Cause title
HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION NO : 14003 of 2009 Between: M.Upender Reddy, S/o.Satti Reddy, R/o.Mudupugal village, Mahaboobabad Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Warangal. 2 The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Khammam. .....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent in not releasing the Tractor & Trailor vehicle bearing Regd. No.AP 36U 4039, AP 36U 4040,seized under Vehicle Check report No.0182547 dated 21.6.2009 by the 2nd respondent without considering the petitioner representation dated 1.7.2009 wherein the petitioner expressed his readiness to pay the tax amount in easy instalments basis as illegal, and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to release the vehicle along with the original registration documents pertaining to the vehicle and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon`ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. JOSEPH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following:
ORAL ORDER:
(Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The petitioner has made a grievance in this petition that his tractor and trailor bearing registration Nos. AP-36-U-4039 and AP-36-U-4040 respectively have been seized by the respondent authorities for the reasons stated in check report dated 21-06-2009.
It is the submission of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is unable to make payment of the amount demanded by the respondent authorities immediately because of his poor economic condition. It has been further submitted by him that the petitioner be permitted to make the payment in suitable instalments..
On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Transport appearing for the respondent authorities has submitted that there is no provision with regard to permitting a citizen to make payment in instalments and, therefore, the request made by the petitioner cannot be accepted.
Looking to the facts of the case, if the petitioner wants to make payment in instalments, we direct the respondent authorities to accept the same. However, the vehicle may be released only upon payment of the last instalment i.e., only when the entire amount payable by the petitioner is paid.
In view of the above direction, the petition stands disposed of. 14th July, 2009 ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J
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.