IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.25090 of 2011 Between: G.Varadaraju. … Petitioner And Deputy Transport Commissioner & Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur, Anantapur District and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri E.Maruthi Raja. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Transport. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seizing and detaining the petitioner’s light motor vehicle bearing Registration No. AP 04/T 3478 under Vehicle Check Report No.379249, dated 25-8-2011, of respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the owner of the above mentioned light motor vehicle, which was seized under the said Vehicle Check Report, dated 25-8-2011, on the following allegations: “(1) The vehicle is misused for Education Institution bus purpose without permit and proof of tax; (2) No Valid F.C; (3) No permit; (4) No tax and EIB; (5) No DL; (6) No IC; (7) No PUC; (8) Seats unauthorizedly fitted to accommodate 23+1 seats. Hence, vehicle misused as EIB w/o permit and ta”. The petitioner made an application on 26-8-2011 before respondent No.1 seeking release of the vehicle, but the said application is kept pending without any order being passed. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner’s application is kept pending and a show-cause notice was issued calling upon him to explain why differential tax cannot be collected for the alleged increase of seats from 7 to 23+1. As on today, the respondents have not determined the tax liability of the petitioner. Therefore, I do not see any justification for the respondents to keep the vehicle in continued detention awaiting completion of enquiry. In the event the petitioner’s liability for payment of tax is determined, they shall be free to recover the same from him. In the light of the above facts, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: 1) The petitioner shall deposit Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with respondent No.1 and produce the relevant documents relating to the seized vehicle; 2) The petitioner shall file an undertaking before respondent No.1 that he will not alienate or in any manner alter the vehicle, pending enquiry and passing order by respondent No.1; 3) On the petitioner complying with the aforesaid conditions, respondent No.1 shall release the seized vehicle to the petitioner; and 4) The payment of the sum of Rs.10,000/- and the release of the vehicle to the petitioner shall be subject to the result of the enquiry before respondent No.1. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.30856 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:07-9-2011 Note: Issue CC in three days. (BO) MNR