IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6237 of 2009 Between: K. Hari Krishna S/o. K. Ashappa, R/o. H.No. 1-76, Marpally Village, Basheerabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Attapur, Ranga Reddy Dist. 2 The Motor Vehicles Inspector Pargi, Ranga Reddy Dist. ...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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the seizure and detention of petitioner's Tractor - Trailor bearing R. No. AP 28 T 9537 and AP 28 T 9538 - seized under Vehicle Check Report No. 2501139 dt. 19-4- 2006 by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, void, vitiated unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, contrary to the mandatory provision of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and violative of the judgment of the Hon'ble Court in 2000 (4) ALD 501 and consequently direct the respondents to release the Tractor - Trailor bearing R. No. AP 28 T 9537 and AP 28 T 9538, forthwith to the petitioner Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Rajanikanth Jwala Counsel for the respondents: G.P., Transport The Court made the following Order: By this writ petition, the petitioner questions the seizure of his vehicle, Tractor-Trailor bearing Regn. No.AP-28-T-9537 and AP-28-T-9538, by the respondents on the ground that the same has been seized in violation of the orders of the Division Bench of this Court in Saleem Tours and Transports Vs. J.T.C. & Secretary, RTA, Hyderabad[1]. From a perusal of the check report, it appears that allegations are made that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was being plied without payment of motor vehicle tax and also without possessing requisite documents. When the matter is taken up, the learned Government Pleader for Transport appearing on behalf of the respondents, on instructions, submits that, at the time of check, it was found that the petitioner was due and liable to pay an amount of Rs.26,600/- towards tax, Rs.51,680/- towards penalty and also Rs.7,400/- towards compounding fee. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to pay the tax of Rs.26,600/- and the balance amount towards penalty and compounding fee would be paid subject to the outcome of the enquiry to be conducted by the respondents. Whether penalty is to be levied against the petitioner and if so what is the quantum of penalty that is to be levied are matters, which are to be enquired into. As much as it is stated that no final orders are passed pursuant to seizure of the vehicle and in view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The respondents are directed to release the vehicle in question to the petitioner subject to the condition that he deposits an amount of Rs.26,600/- and furnishes an undertaking that he will not alienate or transfer the vehicle pending passing of final orders. It is open to the respondents to enquire into the allegations leveled in the vehicle check report and pass final orders. The amount of Rs.26,600/- to be deposited by the petitioner will be subject to the final orders to be passed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. April 1, 2009 MRR N.B. Furnish copy in two days B.O. [1] 2000(4) ALD 501