IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13818 of 2008 Between: K.Sandeep Singh, S/o. K.Raja Singh, R/o. 12-1-85, Seetarambagh, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Asst. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, (Central Zone) Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Motor Vehicles Inspector, Regional Transport Authority, Medchal, Ranga Reddy 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, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the seizure of the petitioner's vehicle bearing No.AP/03v-2440 Seized under vehicle check report No.0735723, Dated 26.6.2008 by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently direct the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioner forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B.SIVA RAMA KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:13818 OF 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle bearing Nos.AP/03V - 2440 vide vehicle check report No.0735723 dated 26.6.2008, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents to release the vehicle in question. The vehicle of the petitioner was seized on 26.6.2008 on the ground that the vehicle was plied without E.I.B. permit, F.C. and proof of payment of tax. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the enquiry will take its own time and in the mean time, the vehicle, which has been kept in open place, would be subjected to natural decay due to sun and rain. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Transport. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the driver of the vehicle has produced all the documents, but the 2nd respondent without verifying the documents has written the check report and that the petitioner has already paid the tax. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and since no purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle in the custody of the respondents and the vehicle would be subjected to natural decay due to sun and rain, We feel it a fit case wherein the vehicle in question can be directed to be released but subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the vehicle in question forthwith to the interim custody of the petitioner subject to the condition of the petitioner producing the original documents for verification besides furnishing an undertaking to the effect that he would not transfer the vehicle pending enquiry and that he would produce the vehicle as and when the same is required by the respondent-authorities in the course of enquiry and investigation. It is made clear that the above order does not preclude the authorities from proceeding with the enquiry. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ___________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 1st July, 2008 Note: Communicate by wire at party’s costs (BO) Nn. THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13818 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 1.7.2008