MINES & MINERALS = SIZER & CONFISCATION =In view of the amended Rule 9-Q (1) (i) and (ii), read with Rule 9-Q (6), the petitioners are permitted to submit applications to the officer, who seized the vehicles; the said officer shall, within three days from the date of receipt of the applications; examine whether the vehicles were used in committing the offence for the first and the second time; and, if so, consider directing release of the vehicles on payment of the prescribed penalty. If, on the other hand, the vehicles are found to have been used in the commission of the offence, for three or more times, the officer concerned shall consider directing release of the vehicles, in accordance with Rule 9-Q (6), on a bond being executed by the owners of the vehicles for their production as and when directed by the Court.=RAJESH. R, SPSR NELLORE DIST & 2 OTHERS VS PRL SECY TO PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPT, HYD & 3 OTHERS =http://csis.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo =WP&mno=2364&year=2014

MINES & MINERALS = SIZER & CONFISCATION =In view of the amended Rule 9-Q (1) (i) and (ii), read with Rule 9-Q (6), the petitioners are permitted to submit applications to the officer, who seized the vehicles; the said officer shall, within three days from the date of receipt of the applications; examine whether the vehicles were used in committing the offence for the first and the second time; and, if so, consider directing release of the vehicles on payment of the prescribed penalty. If, on the other hand, the vehicles are found to have been used in the commission of the offence, for three or more times, the officer concerned shall consider directing release of the vehicles, in accordance with Rule 9-Q (6), on a bond being executed by the owners of the vehicles for their production as and when directed by the Court.=

seizing the petitioners’ vehicles without following any
procedure, as illegal and arbitrary.=
The amended Rules, notified in G.O.Ms.No.186 dated 17.12.2013,
prescribe a penalty for the first and second offences and, thereafter, for the
confiscation of the vehicle after following the procedure stipulated therein. 
Even in cases where a vehicle is sought to be confiscated, the officer who
seizes the vehicle is empowered to direct its release under Rule 9-Q (6) on
execution of a bond by the owner thereof for production of the vehicle so
released as and when directed by the Competent Court. Proceedings for
confiscation can be instituted in cases where the offences which have been
committed are for the third or more times. 

 In view of the amended Rule 9-Q (1) (i) and (ii), read with Rule 9-Q (6),
the petitioners are permitted to submit applications to the officer, who seized
the vehicles; the said officer shall, within three days from the date of receipt of
the applications; examine whether the vehicles were used in committing the
offence for the first and the second time; and, if so, consider directing release
of the vehicles on payment of the prescribed penalty. If, on the other hand,
the vehicles are found to have been used in the commission of the offence,
for three or more times, the officer concerned shall consider directing release
of the vehicles, in accordance with Rule 9-Q (6), on a bond being executed
by the owners of the vehicles for their production as and when directed by the
Court.
http://csis.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo =WP&mno=2364&year=2014

WP 2364 / 2014
WP 2364 / 2014CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
RAJESH. R, SPSR NELLORE DIST & 2 OTHERS  VSPRL SECY TO PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPT, HYD & 3 OTHERS
PET.ADV. : PENUMAKA VENKATA RAORESP.ADV. : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV
SUBJECT: PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVP., (MISC.MATTERS)DISTRICT:  NELLORE

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

WRIT PETITION No.2364 of 2014
ORDER:

 The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of the
respondents, in seizing the petitioners’ vehicles without following any
procedure, as illegal and arbitrary.

Learned Government Pleader for Mines & Industries would draw
attention of this Court to the new Rules which have been made and notified
in G.O.Ms.No.186 dated 17.12.2013 modifying the earlier Rules regulating
quarrying and transportation of sand.

 Rule 9-Q (1) prescribes a penalty for the first and second offences.
Under rule 9-Q (1) (ii) if the vehicle is found to be involved in an offence more
than two times, it shall, along with sand, be liable for confiscation. Rule 9-Q
(2) provides for seizure of the vehicle. 9-Q (3) stipulates that the authorized
officer, who has seized the vehicle, shall order confiscation of the vehicle so
seized. Rule 9-Q (4) stipulates that no order of confiscation of any vehicle
shall be made, under sub-rule (3), unless the person from whom the vehicle
is seized is given: (i) a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which
it is proposed to confiscate such property; (ii) an opportunity of making a
representation in writing within such time as may be specified in the notice
against the grounds for confiscation; and (iii) a reasonable opportunity of
being heard in the matter. Rule 9-Q (5) prohibits confiscation, under sub-rule
(3), being made of any vehicle if the owner of the vehicle proves, to the
satisfaction of the authorized officer, that it was used in carrying on
operations without his knowledge or connivance or the knowledge or
connivance of his agent, if any, or the person in charge of the vehicle in
committing the offence; and each of them had taken all reasonable and
necessary precautions against such use. Under the proviso to Rule 9-Q (5),
no order prejudicial to any person shall be passed without being afforded an
opportunity of being heard. Rule 9-Q (6) stipulates that any officer who has
seized any vehicle under Sub-rule (1)(ii), and where he makes a report of
such seizure to the Competent Court under sub-rule (2), may release thesame on the execution of a bond by the owner thereof for the production of
the vehicle so released as and when directed by the competent Court. Under
Rule 9-Q (8), upon receipt of any report under sub-rule (2), the Magistrate
shall take such measures as may be necessary for the trial of the accused
and the disposal of the vehicle according to law.

 The amended Rules, notified in G.O.Ms.No.186 dated 17.12.2013,
prescribe a penalty for the first and second offences and, thereafter, for the
confiscation of the vehicle after following the procedure stipulated therein. 
Even in cases where a vehicle is sought to be confiscated, the officer who
seizes the vehicle is empowered to direct its release under Rule 9-Q (6) on
execution of a bond by the owner thereof for production of the vehicle so
released as and when directed by the Competent Court. Proceedings for
confiscation can be instituted in cases where the offences which have been
committed are for the third or more times. 

 In view of the amended Rule 9-Q (1) (i) and (ii), read with Rule 9-Q (6),
the petitioners are permitted to submit applications to the officer, who seized
the vehicles; the said officer shall, within three days from the date of receipt of
the applications; examine whether the vehicles were used in committing the
offence for the first and the second time; and, if so, consider directing release
of the vehicles on payment of the prescribed penalty. If, on the other hand,
the vehicles are found to have been used in the commission of the offence,
for three or more times, the officer concerned shall consider directing release
of the vehicles, in accordance with Rule 9-Q (6), on a bond being executed
by the owners of the vehicles for their production as and when directed by the
Court.

The entire exercise, culminating in an order being passed, shall be
completed within three days from the date of submission of the
representations by the petitioners; and necessary action shall be taken for
release of the vehicles, in cases falling within the ambit of Rule 9-Q(1)(i), on
payment of the prescribed penalty; and, in other cases, on a bond being
executed in terms of Rule 9-Q (6) of the Rules.

The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. The miscellaneouspetitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs.

_______________________________
 (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)
30.01.2014

Note: Issue C.C in two days.
B/o.
 vs

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515