IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTYETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 21127 of 2009 Between: M/s. Sahara Travels, rep. by Kaneez Fatima ..... PETITIONER AND The Deputy Transport Commissioner, Medak and another .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the Following: ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No. KA.25-A.9161 was seized by the second respondent, through Vehicle Check Report No. 0019385, dated 25.09.2009, on the ground that the petitioner violated the permit conditions and misused the vehicle as contract carriage. The petitioner challenges the seizure in this Writ Petition. Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Transport. Vehicle Check Report, dated 25.09.2009, reads as under: “Irregularities Noticed: Stopped and checked the above said vehicle while proceeding from Hyderabad to Bombay with 30 individually paid passengers and found plying (1) on enquiry with the passengers it is revealed that they are individuals not belonging to single contract party and traveling to different places and purposes and paid separate fares of Rs.650/- and 1200/- etc., by dropping them at different places like Pune and Bombay, there is express or implied contract between the passengers and contractor/owner and driver. Hence plying without A.P. permit, A.P. Tax payment, statement of the passengers taken separately and tickets of the passengers for verification. (2) driver absconded in the place after stopping the vehicle for checking. (3) D.L. not produced. Hence, seized the vehicle U/s 8 of A.P.M.V.T. Act and 207 of M.V. Act kept at P.S. rural Zaheerabad for safe custody.” A perusal of the Vehicle Check Report dated 25.09.2009 discloses that the petitioner did not produce A.P. permit, A.P. Tax payment, driving licence and using the vehicle as contract carriage by violating the permit conditions. Certain other lapses were also pointed out. The liability of the petitioner in the context of these observations needs to be established in the proceedings to be initiated under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. If the vehicle is detained and kept in the custody of the second respondent till such proceedings take place, not only the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss, but also the vehicle would be exposed to danger of theft and damage. Therefore, the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner imposing necessary conditions. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that: a) the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No. KA.25-A.9161, shall be released to her, on her depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only); b) the petitioner shall also furnish an undertaking to the effect that she shall not alienate the vehicle till the proceedings in pursuance of the Check Report are finalized and that she shall produce the vehicle as and when required; and c) the petitioner shall be entitled to ply the vehicle, if only it is covered by the necessary documents. d) There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _________________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD,J September 30, 2009 MD/SJ