IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH 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 : 128 of 2009 Between: K. Rasool S/o. Khadar Sab R/o. H.No. 56, Yaalakallu Gram Panchayat, Mudaramdoddi (Po), Marakamalaia Kunta, V. Kota Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Transport Commissioner Chittoor District Chittoor. 2 The Motor Vehicles Inspector Palamner Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.S.BHATT Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. Rule. 2. Service of Rule is waived by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is taken up for final hearing today. 4. The grievance ventilated in the petition by the petitioner is with regard to seizure of his tractor and trailor. He has challenged an order dated 13.11.2008 issued by the respondents whereby the petitioner was called upon to pay the unpaid amount of taxes and penalty in respect of the tractor and trailor in question. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has admitted the fact that the amount of tax in respect of the tractor as well as the trailor had not been paid by the person from whom he has purchased the tractor and trailor. He has, therefore, shown his willingness to make payment of the taxes. However, he has submitted that the amount of penalty imposed by the respondent authorities is not just because no opportunity was given to the petitioner before imposition of the penalty. It has been further submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that before the impugned order was passed no other order or no other notice was given to the petitioner so as to represent his case before the respondent authorities. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader has submitted that the petitioner is bound to pay the amount of tax as well as the penalty because the amount of tax had not been paid in respect of the tractor as well as the trailor by the person from whom the petitioner has purchased the tractor and the trailor. He has, therefore, submitted that the order of seizure is just and proper. It has been further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the order which has been challenged before this Court is an appealable order and it is open to the petitioner to challenge the validity of the impugned order before respondent No.1. 7. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and looking to the facts of the case, we are of the view that when alternative remedy of appeal is available, the proper course to the petitioner should be to approach the appellate authority. 8. In the circumstances, learned Advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition so as to file an appeal before respondent No.1. It has been further submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that as the petitioner is not much literate and is not aware of the procedure, appeal could not be filed before the appellate authority within the period prescribed by the Statute and hence the petitioner would file, along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay before the appellate authority. If such an application is filed, we are sure that the application for condonation of delay shall be considered in accordance with law with due sympathy. 9. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with no order as to costs. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 06.7.2009 bnr Note: C.C. in one week. (B.O) bnr