HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 217 OF 2011 Wednesday, the Twelfth day of January, Two Thousand and Eleven Between: V.Nagaraj Kumar. Petitioner AND The Regional Transport Officer, Office of the Regional Transport Authority, Ongole, Prakasam District and another. Respondents ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the seizure and continued detention of petitioner’s Contract Carriage Vehicle bearing Registration No.PY02C9177 (Re- Registered as Vehicle R.No.AP27Y7466) seized under Vehicle Check Report No.A-342163 dated 20-7-2010 by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, improper, unjust, unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents to release the petitioner’s Contract Carriage Vehicle bearing Registration No.PY02C9177 (Re-Registered as Vehicle R.No.AP27Y7466) forthwith to the petitioner. The facts which lead to the filing of this writ petition, in brief, are as follows: The petitioner purchased a vehicle bearing Registration No.PY 02 C 9177 having seating capacity of 32 in all for a second hand rate at Pandicherry after obtaining loan from the financier for the purpose of eking out his livelihood. Thereupon, he brought the vehicle from Pandicherry to Ongole, Prakasam District and registered the same in his name on the rolls of the 1st respondent herein. It is stated that under Section 40 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, every owner of a motor vehicle shall cause the vehicle to be registered by a Registering Authority in whose jurisdiction he has place of residence, business or where the vehicle is normally kept. The vehicle is covered by valid Registration Certificate and regular statewide contract carriage permit No.PC. A.P.027/19/RTA/09 valid from 7.9.2009 to 06.09.2014 and authorized to ply the same as a contract carriage on all roads in the entire State of Andhra Pradesh and had been paying the prescribed quarterly tax from time to time. He was plying his vehicle strictly as contract carriage as and when hired or engaged by the contract party on payment of lumpsum hire amount for travelling from one destination to another, without picking up or setting down the passengers, enroute and strictly in accordance with the conditions of the Regular Contract Carriage permit covering the said vehicle. While so, the said vehicle was engaged by M/s. Greenline Logistics on hire in October, 2010 for transportation of the employees of M/s. Wipro Technologies Limited located at Gachibowli, Hi-Tech City, Hyderabad. While so, he received intimation from the contractor M/s. Greenlines Logistics that the transport incharge of M/s. Wipro Technologies Limited requested for nine additional seats in the said vehicle for accommodating his company employees. Therefore, in the month of July, 2010, he temporarily provided nine additional seats in his vehicle for accommodating the employees of M/s. Wipro Technologies Limited, as requested by M/s. Greenlines Logistics and also intimated the said aspect to the 1st respondent Registering Authority. It is also his case that in the month of July, 2010, he submitted original documents of his vehicle bearing Registration No.PY02C9177 in the office of the 1st respondent and applied for obtaining re-assignment of Registration Number of his vehicle in the State of Andhra Pradesh as envisaged under Section 47 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thereupon, his application for re- assignment of Registration of his vehicle was processed in the office of the 1st respondent and after obtaining clearance certificate and report from the previous Registering Authority at Pandicherry, a new Registration No.AP27Y7466 was assigned to his contract carriage. At the same time, he also arranged for payment of difference of Tax for nine extra seats temporarily provided in the said vehicle. Later, he came to know that his vehicle was seized and detained by the 2nd respondent at Nagole seizure yard under vehicle check report No.A-342163 dated 20-7-2010. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no violation on the part of the petitioner. If any violation is there on the part of the petitioner, he is prepared to comply with any of the conditions imposed by the authorities concerned. He also submits that for any violation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the authorities are not entitled to detain the vehicle. He also submits that the vehicle in question, in the event of the continuous detention, will expose to the air and light and consequently affects its cost and the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and damage. He further submits that on the earlier occasion, he filed writ petition No. 28208 of 2010 before this court for the release of the said vehicle and initially, this court granted interim direction to the authorities for releasing the vehicle subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.2,00,000/- within a period of one month, but due to certain unexplained problems, he could not comply with the said directions and ultimately, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ petition on the ground that he wanted to avail alternate remedy available in law. Consequently, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn to enable the petitioner to avail alternate remedy under the provisions of law. Consequently he filed an application under Section 207 (2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with rule 448 (A) and (B) of AP. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 seeking for release of the contract carriage vehicle bearing Registration No.PY 02 C 9177 (Re-registered as R.No. AP 27 Y 7466). The same is pending on the file of the 1st respondent i.e., before the Regional Transport Officer, Office of the Regional Transport Authority, Ongole, Prakasam District and the same has not been disposed of so far. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pending consideration of the said application before the 1st respondent, since the vehicle in question is sustaining damage, the same may be released to the petitioner by imposing certain conditions and the petitioner is prepared to abide by such conditions. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner’s case is not so fair as is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as he has played fraud in obtaining necessary permissions in a forged manner and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the writ petition. She further submits that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner filed writ petition questioning the seizure of the vehicle and though this court granted interim order subject to fulfilling certain conditions, the petitioner without complying the same, evolved the method of making application before the authorities and sought to withdraw the writ petition and successfully dragged the matter. Under these circumstances, he is not entitled for the relief as sought for. As can be seen from the facts, the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents with regard to the seizure of the vehicle and he appears to have made an application under Section 207 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, R/w 448 (A) and (B) of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 before the 1st respondent, which is pending without passing any orders thereon. Having regard to these facts, without adverting to any of the contentions raised before this court, the writ petition is disposed directing the first respondent authority to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner after hearing him, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. _________________ Justice G.Chandraiah January 12, 2011 Note: CC in two days. //BO// DVS/MAS