IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5203 of 2008 Between: 1 Sk. Mahammad S/o. Sk. Sattar, R/o. D.No.18-11-30/5, Kuddus Nagar, Vijayawada-3. 2 Abdul Gouse S/o. Pear Saheb R/o. Old Edara, Agiripall Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 Sri Saibaba, The Assistant City Planner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....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 more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus under article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in causing seizure of lorry bearing No.AP 16U 7128 along with the mango wood on 29.02.2008 while being unloading the goods and the action of the 1st respondent in causing the release of the lorry along with the goods as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction and offends Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore direct the respondent to release the lorry along with the mango wood forthwith and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.G.JHANSI, S.C. FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.5203 of 2008 ORDER: The writ petition has been instituted aggrieved by the seizure of the truck bearing No.AP 16 U 7128 with mango woods in it as cargo on 29.02.2008. 2. According to the 2nd petitioner, he is the owner of the truck, while the 1st petitioner is the owner of the commercial cargo therein. It is their claim that the respondent-Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, with a view to take vengeance against one of the saw mill owner, who is not toeing the line of the Officers of the Corporation, have resorted to the illegal action of seizing the truck in question. 3. Smt. G.Jhansi, the learned Standing Counsel, on instructions from the Corporation, represented that because of the damage that was caused by the truck to a Municipal Construction, the seizure of the vehicle has been resorted to, as neither the petitioners nor M/s. Patel and Company, for whom the consignment is brought by the truck, has agreed to compensate the Corporation by paying a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The learned Standing Counsel further states that even now the Corporation is very anxious to release the truck, provided the petitioners either deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- or give an undertaking to pay the said sum, after participating in the enquiry for establishing the damage sustained to the property of the Municipal Corporation. 4. Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the petitioners opt to give an undertaking to the Municipal Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-, in case, in the enquiry that is to be conducted by the Corporation, it is held established that the truck in question had caused any damage to the property of the Municipal Corporation. 5. The respondent-Municipal Corporation is directed to complete the enquiry, in this regard, within a maximum period of one month, by providing an opportunity to the petitioners herein to participate therein. They are required to pass a reasoned order describing the nature of the damage that has been caused to the property of the Municipal Corporation warranting imposition of a sum of Rs.5,000/- as fine on the petitioners herein. The 1st respondent Municipal Corporation is directed to forthwith deliver the keys of the truck to the writ petitioners or their representative so as to enable them to remove the truck from the Municipal premises, where it is presently parked. 6. With this, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 3rd April, 2008 Note: Issue CC by tomorrow. B/o v v To 1. The Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. The Assistant City Planner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. Two CCs to 4. Two CD copies.