IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.4962 of 2010 BETWEEN: Hrithvik Constructions rep by its Managing Partner, G.Brahmaiah ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, North Zone, Hyderabad at Tirumalghery, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.4962 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri B.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Transport appearing on behalf of the respondents. At their request the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in seizing and detaining the petitioner’s Vibratory Soil Compactor (Road Roller) bearing Chassis No.0811107131 vide Vehicle Check Report No.2341987 dated 17.02.2010 as arbitrary and illegal. When the petitioner’s vehicle was engaged on the Outer Ring Road at Dundigal on 17.02.2010 the 2nd respondent carried out a check and, on the ground that the vehicle was plying without records and without valid registration, seized the vehicle. Sri B.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would request this Court to fix a reasonable amount as deposit for release of the vehicle in question. A Division Bench of this Court in SALEEM TOURS & TRAVELS VS. JT. TRANSPORT COMMR., R.T.A., HYDERABAD[1] held that a vehicle, plying in breach of the conditions of the permit as regards the purpose of usage of the vehicle, can be seized under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act; the vehicle so seized cannot be detained for an unduly long time and, on an application filed by the vehicle operator or the owner, the vehicle should be released with expedition subject to stipulation of conditions to ensure non-alienation of the vehicle and the production of the vehicle in connection with the enquiry; such conditions would include furnishing of cash security of a reasonable amount which could be adjusted later on towards compounding fee or tax if any demanded; the vehicle should be released within a reasonable time i.e. within three days from the date of receipt of the application; and, in case the vehicle was not so released or the conditions imposed for its release are onerous, resort can be had to the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While the petitioner would state, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, that he had filed an application under Rule 448-B of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, Sri B.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would fairly state that, since the application filed earlier was not accepted by the concerned authorities, the petitioner may be permitted to file an application afresh within three days from today. The petitioner is permitted to file an application afresh before the 1st respondent within three days from today for release of the vehicle in question. In case the petitioner files such an application, after complying with the conditions prescribed in Rule 448-B, the 1st respondent shall, within three days of receipt of the application, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law for release of the vehicle in question. The 1st respondent may impose reasonable conditions for the release of the vehicle. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. 11th March 2010 Note: Issue copy by 12.03.2010. B/o CVRK [1] AIR 2000 ANDHRA PRADESH 497