THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.22631 of 2011 Dated 10th August, 2011 Between: A.Subodhkanth Chowdhary …Petitioner And The Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad Central Zone, Khairtabad, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Rajanikanth Jwala Counsel for respondents: GP for Transport The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings No.1616119/D2/2011, dated 02.08.2011, of respondent No.2, and to declare seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No.KA17 A 8799, under vehicle check report, dated 02.08.2011, of respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to release his contract carriage vehicle. The petitioner is the owner of the above-mentioned contract carriage vehicle. On 02.08.2011, the said vehicle was stopped and checked near Ishnapur, Medak District and was seized on the following allegations: “The vehicle is plying with employees of M/s.Vijay Electricals, Rudraram. Hence plying as misuse of permit as Contract Carriage. (TP issued for Sri T.Shanker Singh) and attracts tax as CC. Seized the vehicle U/s 8 of APMVT Act and U/s 207 of MV Act and kept at RTA Sangareddy for safe custody.” The petitioner made an application to respondent No.1 for release of the seized vehicle. While purporting to consider the petitioner’s application, respondent No.1 has issued proceedings, dated 04.08.2011, wherein he has observed that as the vehicle, which was covered by temporary carriage permit to carry passengers to different pilgrimage places, is misused for carrying the persons belonging to M/s.Vijay Electricals Ltd., Rudraram, the petitioner is liable to pay the differential tax as applicable to the State Wide Contract Carriage at Rs.2,625/- per seat per quarter. He has accordingly requested respondent No.2 to collect the differential tax and compounding fee under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Transport, I am of the opinion that respondent No.1 has exceeded his jurisdiction in giving a finding that the petitioner is liable for payment of differential tax. Admittedly, it is respondent No.2, who is competent to consider release of the vehicle and also determine the liability, if any, arising out of the alleged misuse of the transport permits. Therefore, respondent No.1 ought not to have given the direction to respondent No.2 to collect the differential tax. It is only respondent No.2, who after giving a show-cause notice and an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner that is entitled to determine the petitioner’s tax liability. At the hearing, it has come out that respondent No.1 has issued a show-cause notice. The learned Government Pleader has fairly conceded that it is only respondent No.2, who is competent to issue such a notice. Therefore, the said show-cause notice is liable to be ignored. Respondent No.2 is directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner pending determination of the tax liability by him, subject to the following terms: (1) The petitioner shall deposit with respondent No.2 a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) and also produce the documents of ownership and proof of payment of tax in respect of the permit obtained by him. The deposit so made shall be subject to the outcome of the enquiry by respondent No.2; (2) On the petitioner complying with condition No.1 supra, respondent No.2 shall release the vehicle to the petitioner; and (3) The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle or in any manner alter its nature and condition till completion of the proceedings by respondent No.2. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.27655 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th August, 2011 Note: Issue CC by tomorrow (b/o) VGB