IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 4034 of 2005 Between: T.Bhanu Prasad, S/o.Venkata Rattaiah, R/o.987, Vasanth Nagar, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Transport Commissioner & Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ranga Reddy District at Attapur. 2 The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Regional Transport Authority (West, Zone) Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus, declaring the seizure of the petitioner's vehicle bearing No.KA/02D-9975 seized under vehicle check report No.77805, dated 24-2-2005 by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently direct the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioner forthwith and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may be deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SIVA RAMA KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that his vehicle bearing No.KA/02D-9975 was seized by the 2nd respondent vide Check Report No.777805, dated 24-02-2005, for violation of certain provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Transport. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in spite of filing an application for grant of interim custody of the vehicle, the same has not been considered by the 1st respondent and therefore, he prays to grant interim custody of the vehicle. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Transport has opposed the same on the ground that the petitioner is liable to pay tax, and therefore, the interim custody of the vehicle cannot be given. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay any tax or has violated any provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act or not, have to be decided by the competent authority after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Till then, it is not desirable to keep the vehicle idle exposing to sun and rain causing damage to the vehicle. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to grant custody of the vehicle to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions: a. that the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the competent authority. b. That the petitioner shall not alienate any part of the vehicle or transfer it to a third party. The petitioner is directed to pay the arrears of tax, if any, due as on today and the same shall have to be adjusted, in case the petitioner is found to pay tax by the competent authority in the enquiry. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ 02-03-2005 Note: Issue operative portion by wire at party’s costs. B/o. vs To 1 The Deputy Transport Commissioner & Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ranga Reddy District at Attapur. 2 The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Regional Transport Authority (West, Zone) Hyderabad. 3 2 CCs to the G.P for Transport, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad(O.U.T). 4 2 CD copies THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 4034 of 2005 Dated: 02-03-2005 vs