THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.25783 of 2011 Dated 15th September, 2011 Between: B.Seenaiah and Co. (Projects) Ltd., …Petitioner And The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad Central Zone, Hyderabad – 500 004 and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Ch.Ravinder Counsel for respondents: AGP for Transport The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No.AP09W 9659, under vehicle check report No.1318029, dated 03.08.2011, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 to release the seized vehicle. I have heard Sri Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport representing the respondents. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the above-mentioned vehicle, which was seized on 03.08.2011 on the following allegations: “(1) RC not produced, (2) W/o tax for QE 30.09.2011, (3) W/o Fitness, (4) W/o IC, (5) W/o valid DL, he is possessing (NT). Hence vehicle is seized U/s 8 of APMVT Act and U/s 207 of MV Act and kept at APSRTC, Hayathnagar for safe custody.” The petitioner stated in its affidavit that it has filed an application before respondent No.1 for release of the seized vehicle through representation, dated 05.09.2011, and that as the said application was not even entertained, it has sent the same through registered post with acknowledgement due on 06.09.2011, enclosing pay order for Rs.25/- for considering the application, which was stated to have been received by respondent No.1 on 07.09.2011. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far the said application has not been disposed of and the seized vehicle is under continued detention. This Court has been consistently receiving complaints by way of writ petitions that the competent authorities vested with the power to release the seized vehicles are not receiving the applications when they are sought to be presented. Such refusal constitutes abdication of functions of the competent authorities, because it is their statutory obligation to receive the applications and dispose them of in accordance with law. Failure to receive the applications invariably leads to inordinate delays for the owners of the seized vehicles to get their vehicles released and thereby subjecting the vehicles under continued detention for unduly long periods. Such an action on the part of the statutory functionaries cannot be appreciated. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Transport Commissioner shall issue necessary instructions by way of a circular to the competent authorities to entertain the applications filed by the owners/persons interested in the seized vehicles and pass appropriate orders within reasonable time, so that those persons may either secure release of the seized vehicles or avail further remedies in the event orders rejecting the applications for release of the seized vehicles are passed. The Commissioner shall issue such a circular within one month from today. In the event of any complaint being received by him that the competent authorities are not entertaining the applications, he shall take appropriate action against such authorities. As regards the relief claimed in this writ petition, the vehicle was seized on the allegations that registration certificate is not produced, tax for quarter ending 30.09.2011 was not paid, FC, IC and valid driving licence were not produced. The proceedings under Section 8 of the A.P.Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 have not been completed and the petitioner’s tax liability is not determined. In these circumstances, it is just and appropriate that respondent No.1 releases the seized vehicle to the petitioner subject to its depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), which shall be subject to the outcome of the enquiry. The petitioner shall produce the ownership and other relevant documents relating to the seized vehicle, apart from giving an undertaking before respondent No.1 that it will not alienate or in any manner change the character of the vehicle pending the enquiry. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.31795 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th September, 2011 Note: Issue CC in five days. (b/o) VGB