IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10956 of 2008 Between: M. Aravind Kumar, S/o. M. Rama Rao, R/o. H.No. 2-1-407, A & B, F.No. 501, Shanti Bhavan, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Secunderabad. 2 The Motor Vehicle Inpector, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order, direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the seizure of the petitioners vehicle bearing No. AP 10 V 8182 vide vehicle check report No. 2196860 dated 17-05-2008 is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the first respondent to release the Petitioner's vehicle. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10956 of 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.AP 10 V 8182. A check was conducted on 17.05.20208 by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, 2nd respondent herein. The vehicle was seized under check report, dated 17.05.2008, alleging that the names of 32 passengers, who were travelling in the bus, did not tally with the list of passengers. It was also alleged that conditions of permit were violated. The petitioner challenges the seizure and seeks release of the vehicle. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Transport. The Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the Act’) and the Rules made thereunder prescribe the procedure for determination of lapses, if any, committed by the owners of the vehicle, and the consequences that flow from such determination. According to the petitioner, notice under any provision of the Act has not yet been issued. The question, as to whether the lapses pointed out in the vehicle check report are true or not, needs to be decided in the proceedings, that may be initiated in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. Continued detention and seizure of the vehicle does not advance the purpose, or interest of the respondents. On the other hand, it would expose to theft of parts, and damage. The interest of the respondents can be protected by directing that the vehicle of the petitioner be released, subject to certain conditions. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the respondents shall release the vehicle, bearing No. AP 10 V 8182, to the petitioner on his paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). He shall also file an undertaking to the effect that he shall produce the vehicle as and when necessary, and that he shall not alienate the same, in the meanwhile. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) _____________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 21st May 2008. Note: Furnish C.C. by 22.05.2008. (B/o) sh/vs