THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14753 OF 2010 ORDER (per HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO) The petitioner is the owner of a transport vehicle, (Ashok Leyland make bearing chasis No.KXE 672400), with registration No.TN 38AX 7373. He gave the bus to a travel agency – M/s. S.V.T. Travels and Agencies, Coimbatore on 18.6.2010 for three days for the visit of 58 passengers to Tirupati and other pilgrimage centres. Statedly, the petitioner obtained permission from the Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore (North) being No.R.N./30825/AZ/09 dated 31.7.2009. The same is valid upto 31.7.2010. The bus was checked by the 3rd respondent, on 20.6.2010, at Alipiri. On the allegation that the petitioner’s vehicle was being plied as a stage carriage permit, without paying the motor vehicle tax under the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 (in short ‘the Act’), the bus was seized and a report was submitted to the 2nd respondent. Being aggrieved by such seizure, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. As directed, the 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit at the preliminary stage itself inter-alia alleging that the petitioner obtained permission as a contract carriage, but used the vehicle as a stage carriage in contravention of the provisions of the Act. It is also stated that a show cause notice dated 23.6.2010 was issued, and that an explanation was not submitted. The matter came up before us on 17.8.2010. The petitioner’s counsel produced the original registration certificate, insurance certificate, and proof of payment of tax with the Coimbatore authorities. This was, however, disputed. Having regard to this, we directed the release of the vehicle on condition of the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs.2,20,000/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty thousand only) issued by a Nationalized Bank at Tirupati. This order has been complied with, and the vehicle has been released. There is no dispute about this. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the show cause notice was received by the petitioner on 31.7.2010, and the petitioner also submitted his explanation on 2.8.2010. We do not find any strong reason to disbelieve the statement made by the counsel. Therefore, instead of keeping the matter pending, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the matter directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the application in accordance with the provisions of Section 207(2) the Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Release of vehicle, on furnishing bank guarantee, as directed by this Court, shall be subject to the final orders that may be passed by the 2nd respondent. We also observe that, if any penalty is imposed, it shall be open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 12 of the Act. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition shall stand disposed of. No costs. ____________ V.V.S.RAO,J ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date: 7-9-2010 asp