THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.20528 of 2011 Dated 24th August, 2011 Between: K.Ravi Kiran Kumar …Petitioner And The Regional Transport Authority, Adilabad, Adilabad District and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A.Jagan Counsel for respondents: AGP for Transport The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seizing the petitioner’s vehicle, bearing registration No.AP1T 6500, under vehicle check report, dated 29.04.2011, of respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri A.Jagan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner is the registered owner of the maxi cab bearing the above-mentioned registration number. When the vehicle was being plied from Laxmichanda Village, respondent No.2 has seized the said vehicle under check report, dated 29.04.2011, on the following irregularities: “The Vehicle PC, DW/0 Tax for 19.01.2011 2. W/o Fitness certificate at the time of Check. W/o Insurance certificate 4. W/o Driving licence at the time of check 5. W/o at the time of check. Hence seized the vehicle on 29.04.2011 of MV Act, and kept the same at PS Nirmal for safe custody.” The petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the said seizure. A counter affidavit is filed, wherein it is inter alia stated that the seating capacity of the vehicle is ten in all and the tax liability is Rs.630/- per seat per quarter. It is further stated that the tax last paid was upto quarter ending 31.12.2009 and tax has not been paid from 01.01.2010 till date. It is further stated that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,02,060/- comprising Rs.34,020/- towards tax and Rs.68,040/- towards penalty, besides payment of Rs.6,750/- towards compounding fee. Admittedly, the petitioner has not approached respondent No.1, who is the competent authority for release of the vehicle under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 448-B of the A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Unless the petitioner first approached the competent authority for release of the vehicle and failed in his endeavour to get the vehicle released, the cause for filing the writ petition will not arise. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the final order, dated 07.02.2011, in W.P.No.2405 of 2011, a perusal of which, shows that no ratio was laid down therein to the effect that a writ petition can be maintained without the owner of the vehicle first approaching the competent authority. The law is well settled that ordinarily a person cannot be permitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court without first availing the effective alternative remedy. The writ petition is therefore dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before respondent No.1 for release of the seized vehicle. Within three days of filing of such application, respondent No.1 shall pass an appropriate order. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by such an order, he will be entitled to invoke the remedy available to him in law. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.24910 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th August, 2011 VGB