Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 22 (TS)

Jaripete Ramesh v. Syed Yasin Queresh

2021-01-20

CHALLA KODANDA RAM

body2021
ORDER : 1. It is a case where the contempt case is filed alleging violation of the orders of this Court dated 24.08.2020 in W.P. No. 13580 of 2020. 2. Petitioner’s vehicle transporting Jaggery was seized alleging that the petitioner is transporting Jaggery for manufacture of illicit liquor. Taking note of the fact that there is no prohibition or Control Order per se prohibiting transportation of Jaggery, which is a common edible item, and the seizure was only on the suspicion that the jaggery would be used in the manufacture of illicit liquor, this Court disposed of the writ petition on 24.08.2020 directing release of the seized vehicle, pending enquiry, and subject to the petitioner furnishing an undertaking that he shall not alienate or create third party rights on the vehicle or alter the physical features of the vehicle. 3. Now, in this contempt case, the petitioner is on affidavit before this Court stating that he had approached the authorities on 27.08.2020 with a copy of the order dated 24.08.2020 passed by this Court and requested for release of the vehicle. But the respondents did not release the vehicle. 4. The contempt case was filed on 09.10.2020. Papers were served on the learned Government Pleader’s Office on 09.10.2020. However, the matter itself came up for hearing only on 12.11.2020 on which date notice was ordered on the respondent- contemnor. 5. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondent dealing with the merits of the writ affidavit which are not relevant for the disposal of the contempt petition, as the only issue that is required to be considered in a contempt case is whether the orders of this Court were implemented and if not, whether there were any compelling reasons or circumstances for the respondents that prevented them from implementing the orders of this Court. 6. It is stated that a writ appeal i.e. W.A. No. 541 of 2020 was filed on 02.12.2020 and the same is pending. 7. Learned Government Pleader, by drawing attention of this Court to the details mentioned in Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit, would submit that in view of growing crime rate day by day, the seizure of the respondent vehicle is justified, and that the petitioner failed to furnish the undertaking as directed by this Court. He further submits that the vehicle was released on 15.01.2021. 8. He further submits that the vehicle was released on 15.01.2021. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a deliberate attempt on the part of the respondents in not implementing the orders, for obvious reasons, and in spite of the petitioner pleading with the respondents, thus the respondents have committed contempt of Court. Learned counsel would however submit that after much persuasion and after filing of contempt case, the vehicle was released after about 4½ months from the date of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition. 9. The argument of learned Government Pleader that the seizure was warranted in view of ever increasing crime rate is liable to be rejected as the same is not relevant for the purpose of deciding this contempt case, as the only factor relevant is whether there is any violation of the orders of this Court. If the respondents are so desirous of contesting the matter, the order in the writ petition could have got varied by way of appeal or review, however, no such immediate steps were taken and it is only after receipt of the notice in the contempt case, an appeal has been filed on 02.12.2020. 10. It may also be noted that this Court, considering the fact that the petitioner being driver-owner of the seized vehicle, and if the seized vehicle is detained in the respondent’s premises, exposed to sun and rain, the vehicle would deteriorate, causing huge financial loss which would not be in the interest of either the State or the petitioner, and therefore directed the release of seized vehicle, pending enquiry, by imposing a condition of furnishing an undertaking by the petitioner. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner had not approached the authorities for release of the vehicle by furnishing the undertaking is contrary to the record as there is no denial on the part of the respondent that as a matter of fact on 28.08.2020 the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 27.08.2020 to the respondent and had also obtained acknowledgment seal which was signed by the office of the respondents. 11. 11. The other contention of the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-contemnor that as the petitioner had failed to furnish the undertaking as directed and as a matter of fact the respondent even addressed a letter dated 27.11.2020 directing the petitioner to furnish the undertaking so as to implement the orders of this Court also appears to be an afterthought, as, if at all the undertaking as directed by this Court is not furnished by the petitioner and the same is due, nothing prevented the respondent to issue such letter to the petitioner on or after 28.08.2020 rather than waiting till 27.11.2020; and it is only after a lapse of three months, that too, after receipt of papers in the contempt case, such a letter has been issued. 12. In that view of the matter, the explanation offered by the respondent does not appear to be bona-fide. 13. It may be noted that these are routine orders that are being passed, day in and day out, at the admission stage, taking into consideration that the vehicle owners are only transporters/ carriers and no useful purpose would be served if the seized vehicles are detained in respondent’s premises as the vehicles will be deteriorated on account of exposure to sun and rain. It may further be noted that the release is also a conditional release subject to the result of pending enquiry under the provisions of Excise Act. Therefore, the argument of the learned Government Pleader that the vehicle was released on 15.01.2021 and therefore there is substantial compliance does not hold water as the order in the writ petition was made on 24.08.2020 and the contempt case was filed on 09.10.2020 and the purported release was on 15.01.2021 which is clearly after filing of contempt case alleging non-compliance. Further, the argument of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner did not furnish the undertaking so as to implement the orders of this Court cannot be accepted as the petitioner approached the respondent’s office on 28.08.2020 and submitted a letter dated 27.08.2020 and requested to release his vehicle as per the order of this Court dated 24.08.2020 and there is acknowledgment of the respondent’s office on the petitioner’s letter dated 27.08.2020. Therefore, at that juncture, nothing prevented the respondent from obtaining the undertaking or from issuing a letter to the petitioner to furnish the undertaking for release of the vehicle in terms of the order of this Court. Further, the argument of the learned Government Pleader that the respondent has issued a letter to the petitioner on 27.11.2020 directing to furnish the undertaking is also a consequent action after receiving the papers in the contempt case. 14. In those circumstances, this Court finds there is violation of the orders dated 24.08.2020 and accordingly deems it appropriate to punish the respondent by imposing a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) to be collected from the salary of the respondent, and payable to the State. 15. Subject to the above direction, the contempt case is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.