THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.18003 of 2010 Dated:17.08.2010 Between: V.P.Palanisamy .. Petitioner And The Deputy Transport Commissioner, Chittoor, Chittoor District and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.18003 of 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is the registered owner of the bus, registered with the Regional Transport Authority, Salem West in the State of Tamilnadu, with Registration Mark No.TN 67/S 3565. The bus was checked by the second respondent on 19.07.2010. As per the Check Report, the bus was proceeding from Tirupathi to Komarapalayam via Chittoor District with 59 passengers including the driver and cleaner. The necessary documents were produced, but allegedly the Permit issued by the Andhra Pradesh Authority was not produced. On coming to a provisional conclusion that the bus owner did not pay the motor vehicle tax, the second respondent seized the vehicle under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) read with Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 (MVT Act). The petitioner then moved the first respondent under Rule 448-B of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. It is stated that the first respondent is insisting on the petitioner paying Rs.3,675/- (Rupees three thousand six hundred and seventy five only) towards tax per quarter per passenger upto the quarter ending 30.09.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner assails the very seizure of the vehicle on 19.07.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the Special Permit obtained for running the bus as a contract carriage from 17.07.2010 to 18.07.2010 on the route named therein. He also submits that there is a reciprocal agreement with the Governments of Andhra Pradesh and Tamilnadu and, therefore, the levy of motor vehicle tax on the bus, in respect of which the tax was already paid, is illegal and arbitrary. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport (Roads and Buildings) relies on Section 12 of the MVT Act and opposed the Writ Petition on the ground that an alternate remedy is available. After considering her submission and perusing the documents, we are not able to conclusively hold in favour of the petitioner that the bus was running under the contract on a permit and that necessary tax was paid. We, however, hasten to add that it is a matter to be decided by the appropriate authority in the final proceedings against which an appeal would lie under Section 12(a) of the MVT Act read with Motor Vehicles Taxations Rules, 1963. Therefore, we refrain from making any comment thereon. However, as the bus is under seizure since 19.07.2010 there is a likelihood of damage to the vehicle. Taking this into consideration, we dispose of the Writ Petition itself, at the stage of admission, in the following manner. a) on condition of the petitioner furnishing an unconditional and irrevocable bank guarantee from any branch of a Nationalized Bank in Chittoor, the bus seized on 19.07.2010 by the second respondent bearing No.TN 67/S 3565, shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. b) We also direct the first respondent to dispose of the matter by passing a final order on communication to the petitioner to enable him to attend the enquiry. c) It is needless to mention that the petitioner has to place all the material before the first respondent in the enquiry. d) The said deposit shall abide by the final order to be passed by the first respondent. _____________ V.V.S. RAO, J ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 17.08.2010 Note:- Dispatch C.C. by 18.08.2010 (B/o) KH