THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24831 of 2011 Dated 07th September, 2011 Between: Sri G.Dharma Reddy …Petitioner And The Joint Commissioner & Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Adilabad, Adilabad District and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Prakash Chakravarthi Counsel for respondents: AGP for Transport The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the seizure and continued detention of the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No.AP 01V 2932 (Mahindra & Mahindra), under check report No.1258304, dated 12.08.2011, by respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to release the seized vehicle. The petitioner’s vehicle was seized by respondent No.2 on the following allegations: “1. Without RC; 2. Without IC; 3. Without fitness certificate; 4. Without tax paid; 5. Without Driving licence; 6. Without Form No.1 and 7. Without PUC.” The petitioner filed W.P.No.23279 of 2011, by impleading the Joint Commissioner and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Khairatabad, Hyderabad as respondent No.1, seeking release of the seized vehicle. This Court, while declining to direct release of the vehicle on the ground that the petitioner has not approached the competent authority i.e., respondent No.1 herein, with an application for release of the vehicle, dismissed the writ petition, however, with liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent No.1 with an application for release. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that even though he has made an application before respondent No.1 as permitted by this Court, respondent No.1 has not taken a decision on the said application so far. When this writ petition came up before this Court on 06.09.2011, the same was adjourned to enable the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport to get instructions as to whether the petitioner has made an application for release of the seized vehicle and if so, the same has not been disposed of. Today, at the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader reported that even though the petitioner has made an application, he did not enclose the challan for Rs.25/- as a condition for release, apart from not producing the relevant documents along with the application. In my opinion, respondent No.1 is not justified in keeping the petitioner’s application filed as far back as 25.08.2011 pending on the purported ground that the petitioner has not enclosed challan for Rs.25/- and failed to produce the required documents. Nothing prevented respondent No.1 from returning the application as defective. Respondent No.1 should realise that seizure and continued detention of the vehicle costs enormous loss to its owner. If he is of the opinion that the owner of the vehicle is not entitled to release of the same, he shall pass an appropriate order giving reasons for rejecting the application, so that the aggrieved party can avail further remedies. By keeping the application pending, the right of the aggrieved party to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance is being scuttled. As the petitioner has already made an application on 25.08.2011 for release of the seized vehicle, respondent No.1 is directed to communicate the defects, if any, to the petitioner within three days from today. On rectification of the defects so pointed out, respondent No.1 shall consider the application and dispose of the same within two days thereafter. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.30541 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 07th September, 2011 VGB