IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6473 of 2008 Between: A. Narayan Reddy S/o.A. Sai Reddy R/o.H.No. 1-38, Chinamandadi Village, Pedamandadi Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 The Station House Officer, Kothakota Police Station, Kothakota Village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in seizing trailer bearing registration No.AP 22 W 4369 as arbitrary and without jurisdiction. In his affidavit, the petitioner stated that he purchased a new trailer on 24-09-2007 from a dealer viz., M/s.Sri Bandeswara Agro Industries, Jadcherla, Mahaboobnagar District, on payment of total sale consideration, and got it registered in the office of Regional Transport Officer, Mahaboobnagar. The allegation of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 forcibly took away the said trailer from his compound on 29-09-2007, without assigning any reasons, and that when he questioned the said high handed action of respondent No.2, he was informed that his son viz., Mr.Jagapathi Reddy purchased a new tractor-cum-trailer from M/s.Sri Balaji Engineering Company, which is a dealer of Massey Ferguson Tractors, and that his trailer is seized in connection with the said dispute. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, stated that the above-mentioned trailer bearing registration No.AP 22 W 4369 belonging to the petitioner was never seized by the respondents. Sri A.Vishnu Vardhana Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the hearing, passed on two photographs showing the trailer with the above registration number, and asserted that the photographs clearly show that the trailer is parked in front of the Police Station. Even a close examination of the said photographs do not clearly reveal whether the trailer is parked in the Police Station premises or not. Since the respondents denied seizure of the trailer and the same being in their custody, I am not inclined to go into this disputed question of fact in this Writ Petition. As the respondents have come out with an unequivocal stand that they have not seized the trailer, irrespective of the correctness or otherwise of the said statement, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition in the following terms: 1. The petitioner shall be free to reclaim the possession of the trailer wherever it is. 2. In the process of the petitioner taking possession of the said trailer, even if the same is found in the Police Station premises, respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall not prevent the petitioner from taking possession of the same; 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall not seize the petitioner’s trailer in future otherwise than by following due process of law. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.8449 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 9th April, 2008 lur