IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 10836 of 2009 Between: M/s Srinidhi IIT Founation High School, Rep by its Correspondent & Owner M.Devendar S/O. Narayana, aged 39 years, R/o. H.No.2-4-155, Hanamkonda, Warangal City & District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary, Road and Transport Authority, Karimnagar Town & District. 2 The Assistnat Motor Vehicle Inspector , (Enforcement), Road Transport Authority, Karimnagar Town and District. .....RESPONDENT (S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or order or direction or writ specially writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in seizing the school bus bearing No. AP 36W 2752 of the petitioner vide vehicle Check Report No.0117641 dated 22-5-2009 of the 2nd respondent on 22-5-2009 as arbitrary, illegal, high handed one and unconstitutional and forthwith release the same in favour of the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.NARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner’s vehicle was seized on 22.5.2009 on allegations of violation of the conditions of the permit and for non- payment of motor vehicles tax apart from other violations. That is the substantive grievance in this writ petition. The petitioner submitted an application to the 1st respondent for release of the vehicle on 23.5.2009 and is aggrieved that the 1st respondent has not disposed of the said application. The learned Government Pleader for Transport states that the 1st respondent is not the competent authority and that the petitioner should have made an application to the RTA Warangal and not to the 1st respondent, who is the RTA Karimnagar. Even if that be so, the 1st respondent is required to dispose of the petitioner’s application stating that he is not competent authority and he may, if he is courteous, inform the petitioner that the appropriate authority is RTA Warangal. At any rate, passing an order on the petitioner’s application is an unavoidable adjunct of the public functions of the 1st respondent. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to pass an order on the petitioner’s application and communicate the same to the petitioner. It is however open to the petitioner to make an application to the appropriate authority for release of the vehicle. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 3.6.2009. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 10836 of 2009. Dated: 3.6.2009.