IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.15433 OF 2011 Between: K.Saidulu … Petitioner AND The Secretary, Nalgonda District. … Respondent This Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.15433 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner of goods vehicle bearing No. AP 24 X 5067. The said vehicle was seized on 09.01.2011 vide vehicle check report No.1381230 alleging that it was found plying with overload of 10185 Kgs. Subsequently, the vehicle was released on 10.01.2011 accepting the compound fees paid by the petitioner under Section 200(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the original documents of the vehicle have been retained by the respondent. On 10.01.2011 itself, the respondent issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the permit should not be suspended. The petitioner submitted his explanation and having considered the same, the respondent by proceedings, 29.03.2011 suspended the petitioner’s permit for a period i.e. from 31.03.2011 to 30.04.2011. In view of the said order, the petitioner could not ply his vehicle for the entire period of suspension. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the respondent to return the original documents which were retained by the respondent while passing the order of suspension. Alleging that in spite of repeated requests, the respondent did not return the original documents, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the said action of the respondent is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Transport appearing for the respondent. The fact that the petitioner had paid the compound fees and that even the period of suspension of the petitioner’s permit was over has not been disputed by the learned Government Pleader. In the circumstances, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent is not justified in retaining the original documents of the vehicle. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to release the original documents of the petitioner’s vehicle bearing No.AP 24 X 5067, provided the same are not required in connection with any other case. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ G.ROHINI, J JUNE 09, 2011 YVL Note: Issue C.C. within two days. (B/o) YVL