IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 7603 of 2009 Between: S.K. Baba Jani, S/o. S.K. Hussain Sab, R/o. Lagulud - Village, Tq-Boker, Nanded District State of Maharastra ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Secretary, Road Transport Authority, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Road Transport Authority, Adilabad District, Adilabad. 3 The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Nirmal, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the constitution of India declaring the action of the respondents herein in issuing the check report No. 0638151 dated 01/04/09 issued by the third respondent herein in report No. 0638151 dated 01/4/09 issued by the third respondent herein in seizing the petitioner and which was kept in check post of Transport, Bhainsa, Adilabad District as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 19 (1)(g) Article 21 of the constitution of India and also against the principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to release the vehicle Registration bearing No. MH 22B7228 i.e. omni bus (jeep) pertains to the petitioner and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SADURAJESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 7603 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The grievance of the petitioner is that his vehicle bearing No.MH22B 7228 has been seized by the respondent – authorities at Bhainsa, Adilabad District and the said vehicle has not been released in spite of the fact that the petitioner has submitted an application to respondent no.2 on 4.4.2009. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted that the representation dated 4.4.2009 has not been submitted to respondent no.2 and therefore he has not taken any action so far. Further, it has been submitted that the application should have been accompanied by a challan for Rs.25/-and respondent no.2 has neither received the application nor a copy of the challan. It has been further submitted that if the application along with a copy of challan and documents is submitted to respondent no.2, the application which might be filed by the petitioner shall be disposed of as soon as possible. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that he would submit a fresh application along with a copy of challan for Rs.25/- and copies of relevant documents so that respondent no.2 can look into the application and pass appropriate order. In the circumstances it is ordered that if an application along with copy of challan for Rs.25/- and relevant copies of documents is filed before the respondent no.2, he shall pass appropriate order on the application within one week from the date of receipt of the application. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed with no order as to costs. ___________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 17th April, 2009 asp