IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:25148 of 2008 Between: T. Viswanath S/o. Late Thammajappa Prop Girija Motor Service, Girija Shankar Nilaya Thali Road, Anekal, Bangalore, Karnataka. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Motor Vehicle Inspector Madanpalli, Chittoor District. 2 Deputy Transport Commissioner & Secretary RTA, Chittoor. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NOUSHAD ALI Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No.KA 51/3960, by respondent No.1 under Vehicle Check Report No.0224245, dated 05.11.2008 as illegal. Heard Sri Noushad Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport for the respondents. The petitioner’s vehicle covered by a special permit issued by the Government of Karnataka was intercepted and seized on 05.11.2008 at 10.30 a.m. at B.Kothakota. The alleged irregularities mentioned in the Vehicle Check Report are as under: “Stopped and checked the above said vehicle while proceeding from Bangalore to B.Kothakota with 30 in all and found that Bangalore to B.Kothakota 18 passengers for Rs.65/- OCH to B.Kota.” Hence, plied express stage carriage without permit and Tax. RC, IC, F.C., D.C. CC not produced. No payment. Seized kept at B.Kota P.S. for safe custody.” The petitioner averred that Under Rule 448-B of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, he ﬁled his application for release of the vehicle before respondent No.2 and that so far, no order has been passed thereon. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport, on instructions, stated that the petitioner was running his vehicle as express stage carriage by collecting individual fares from 28 passengers, who boarded the vehicle at Bangalore and Chintamani, without holding such permit and paying tax to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. He also stated that the documents, such as, registration certiﬁcate, ﬁtness certiﬁcate, insurance certificate etc., were not produced. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation that the petitioner’s vehicle was plied as an express stage carriage is incorrect and that even assuming that it was plied as such, as of now, there is no legal liability on the petitioner in the absence of any notiﬁcation issued under Section 3A of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 and validly subsisting at present. He further submitted that the petitioner is prepared to produce all the documents concerning the vehicle, before respondent No.2 and also pay the prescribed tax payable for his vehicle covered by the special permit issued by the State of Karnataka. The vehicle was seized on 05.11.2008. Already more than ten days elapsed since then. Completion of enquiry and passing of appropriate order by the competent authority is bound to take some more time. In my considered view, continued detention of the petitioner’s vehicle till completion of the proceedings not only causes deterioration in the condition of the vehicle, but also enormous monetary loss to the petitioner. Interests of justice would be met, if the vehicle is released pending completion of the proceedings initiated by the respondents. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: 1) Within ﬁve days from today, the petitioner shall produce all the documents, which were referred to in Column No.7 of the Vehicle Check Report; 2) The petitioner shall pay tax in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.140, dated 12.08.2002; 3) The petitioner shall give an undertaking to respondent No.2 that he will produce the vehicle as and when required for the purpose of enquiry and also enforcement of demand, if any made subject to his right to question such demand, and that he will not alienate or alter the condition of the vehicle till finalization of pending proceedings, and 4) Subject to the petitioner complying with condition Nos.1 to 3 supra, respondent No.2 shall immediately release the vehicle. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.32830 of 2008 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th NOVEMBER, 2008. Note: issue copy in two(2) days. B/o kvni