IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 18876 of 2008 Between: B. Krishnaiah S/o. Pentaiah R/o. Venkatrao Palli (V), Talakondapalli (M), Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary, R.T.A., Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. 2 The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Kalwakurthy, Mahabubnagar 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 will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in seizing the petitioner Vehicle bearing No. AP7G 5461 & 5462 vide V.C.R.NO.1121160 by the 2nd respondent, as arbitrary, illegal and further direct the Respondents to release the said vehicle to the petitioner pending enquiry and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : ORDER: Questioning the action of the 2nd respondent in seizing the petitioner’s vehicle bearing No.AP7G.5461 & 5462 on 22.8.2008 vide VCR.No.1121160, under Sections 8 and 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short ‘the Act’), the petitioner filed the present writ petition. On the last occasion, when the matter was taken up, the learned Government Pleader for Transport sought time to get instructions. Today, he produced before the Court the instructions as per which the vehicle of the petitioner was seized while proceeding from Maisigandi to Amangal with stone metal load for the following irregularities. 1. Carrying stone metal load which attracts tax @ commercial vehicle. 2. Without Registration Certificate 3. Without Tax for QE 30-9-2008 4. Without Pollution Control Certificate 5. Without permit 6. Without Fitness Certificate 7. Without Insurance Certificate 8. Without Driving Licence. It is also stated that on perusal of the records, it was found that the registered owner has paid the tax only upto QE 31.3.2001 and has not paid the tax thereafter or intimated the stoppage of the vehicle to the authorities. Ultimately, it is stated that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.69,260/- for release of the vehicle, which includes Rs.45,940/- towards penalty and unless and until the said amount is paid, the vehicle cannot be released. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle met with an accident in the month of September, 2001 and since then the vehicle was kept at the garriage for major repairs and while the vehicle was being brought from garriage on 22.8.2008 and proceeding towards Amangal after completing repairs, the 2nd respondent checked the vehicle and issued the impugned check report. The learned counsel relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.12057 of 2008 dated 12/6/2008 wherein, the Division Bench, in similar circumstances passed the following order. “Since the petitioner is entitled to question the imposition of penalty, having regard to the fact that enquiry is pending before the 2nd respondent, without expressing any opinion on merits, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to release the vehicle subject to payment of the amount and furnishing an undertaking to the effect that the vehicle in question will not be alienated and no encumbrance will be created and will be produced as and when required by the respondents. It is made clear that the amount paid pursuant to this order shall be subject to the result of the enquiry.” Following the above judgment, this writ petition is also disposed of directing the release of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to the condition of his paying the tax and on his furnishing an undertaking that he will not alienate the vehicle and no encumbrance will be created and will produce the vehicle as and when required by the respondents. So far as the penalty is concerned, after the enquiry, if it is found that the petitioner is liable to pay the penalty amount, he has to pay the said amount. In default, the respondents are at liberty to seize the vehicle. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.8.9.2008 msv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Secretary, R.T.A., Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. 2 The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Kalwakurthy, Mahabubnagar District. 3 2CCs to Govt.Pleader for Transport, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. 4 2CD copies