IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 12528 of 2009 Between: N. Shuklal S/o. Jangu R/o. Lokari Village, Adilabad Mandal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub Inspector of Police, Adilabad Rural Police Station, Adilabad District. 2 The Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Adilabad, Adilabad District. 3 The Motor Vehicles Inspector, Adilabad, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the seizure and continued detention of the petitioner's vehicle i.e., tractor and trolley bearing registration No. AP01U 0812 & AP 1T 8952 seized under vehicle check report No.1238468, dated 31.03.2009 by the 3rd respondent and continued detention by the 2nd respondent, when the vehicle was already seized by the 1st respondent in the criminal case as illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust, un-constitutional, violation of principle's of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle i.e., tractor and trolley bearing registration No.AP01U 0812 & AP 1T 8952 forthwith to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. S. SURENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: G.P. FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3: G.P. FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Transport for respondent Nos.2 and 3. At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is finally heard today. The petitioner has been aggrieved by the seizure of his vehicles, namely, a tractor and trailor bearing Nos.AP 01U 0812 and AP 1T 8952 respectively. The said vehicles have been seized under the provisions of Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 (for short, the MVT Act), because the petitioner did not pay the tax in respect of the said vehicles. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the afore-stated seizure is improper for the reason that the tractor and trailor had already been seized by the Police because the said vehicles had been involved in an accident, which had taken place 06.1.2009. He has relied upon a judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No.21081 of 2006, dt.18.10.2006, wherein, according to the petitioner, it has been held that the vehicles which had already been seized and were in police custody, cannot be seized by the transport authorities. It has been, therefore, submitted that the vehicles in question should be released by respondent Nos.2 and 3 forthwith. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the transport authorities that though the vehicles have already been seized because of their involvement in an accident, the tax in respect of the vehicles had not been paid under the provisions of the MVT Act. Moreover, it has also been submitted that, the driver of the vehicles was using the vehicles without the certificate of registration etc., and therefore it was open to the respondent transport authorities to seize the vehicles under the provisions of the MVT Act as well as under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the MV Act). It has been, therefore, submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 that as the vehicles in question had already been seized by the police authorities, physical possession of the vehicles in question had not been taken by the respondent transport authorities. It has also been submitted that actual possession of the said vehicles would not be taken till they are released by the Court having competent jurisdiction. We have heard the learned Advocates at length. In our opinion, it cannot be said that the power of transport authorities cannot be exercised simply because any vehicle is involved in an accident and is in custody of Police. One can at the most say that the physical possession of the vehicle in question cannot be taken if the vehicle is in police custody. In our opinion, in such a case, the seizure order, which might have been passed by the transport authorities, would remain in abeyance till the vehicle in question, which is involved in an accident and is in police custody, is released by an order of the Court having jurisdiction. In the instant case, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner was plying his vehicles without paying any tax. Upon perusal of the counter affidavit, we find that the tax in respect of the vehicles in question has not been paid since 2004 and the amount of the tax and penalty payable in respect of the tractor is Rs.20,208/-, whereas the tax and penalty payable in respect of the trailor for the same period is Rs.53,280/-. This Court, under its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not like to render any assistance to a person who is plying his vehicle without paying any tax to the transport authorities. Be that as it may, what is to be considered here is whether the authorities can exercise their powers under the provisions of Section 207 of the MV Act and under Section 8 of the MVT Act. Insofar as the judgment referred to by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is concerned, in our opinion, the said judgment would not render any assistance to the petitioner for the reason that the facts of the said case are different. In the said case, the vehicle was seized by the officer under the provisions of the MVT Act when the vehicle was already in custody of the court as the vehicle was involved in a criminal case. After seizing the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle was advised to approach the Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Adilabad, for getting the vehicle released. The Division Bench observed in the said case that such a course could not have been taken because in that case the Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority had no right to release the vehicle when the vehicle in question was in custody of the Court. In the instant case, no such direction has been given for approaching any authority under the MVT Act or MV Act. Needless to say that when the vehicles in question are in custody of the court, till the petitioner in the instant case, gets the said vehicles released under the provisions of Section 457 Cr.P.C., the order of seizure passed by respondent No.3 would remain in abeyance. Only after the vehicles are released by the court, actual possession of the vehicles can be taken by the authorities under the aforestated two Acts and only thereafter, the petitioner can get the vehicles released in accordance with law after making payment of unpaid taxes or compounding fee, as the case may be. For the aforesaid reasons, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the respondent authorities have acted in violation of the law laid down by this Court or against the provisions of the MVT Act or MV Act and therefore the petition is rejected with the clarification that the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 shall remain in abeyance till the vehicles in question are in police custody of a court and till they are released by an order of a Court. The moment the said vehicles are released under an order of any competent Court, the seizure order shall operate and it will be open to the respondent transport authorities to take possession of the said vehicles thereafter. No order as to costs. _______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 17.7.2009 bnr