IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 3534 of 2008 Between: Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Kolar Division, Kolar, Karnataka State. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Deputy Transport Commissioner, Chittoor. 2 Motor Vehicles Inspector, Palamaner, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.RAJAGOPALA CHARY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 3534 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the seizure of vehicle bearing No.KA 07/F 0958 and the check report No.0024565 dated 12.02.2008, as illegal. Heard Sri P. Rajagopalachary, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport. The abovementioned vehicle was seized by respondent No.2 under vehicle check report dated 12.02.2008 on the following alleged irregularities: “Certificate of Registration, Certificate of Insurance, Certificate of Fitness, F/S, HSP, Driving Licence, Pollution under Control and timings schedule not produced.” Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that though copies of the abovementioned documents were available in the vehicle, the vehicle was seized on the ground that the original documents were not produced. He stated that the petitioner is prepared to produce the necessary documents as mentioned in the vehicle check report. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport stated that since the petitioner’s vehicle was found plying unauthorisedly on a route for which it had no permit, a show cause notice was issued on 14.02.2008 for payment of difference of tax. A perusal of the vehicle check report does not contain the allegation of unauthorized plying of the vehicle. If the respondents have later on found that the petitioner’s vehicle was plying on the routes without permit, they shall be free to take action in accordance with law. But pending such action, if the vehicle is continued to be detained, it would result in deterioration of the condition of vehicle apart from causing loss to the petitioner. For the abovementioned reasons, respondent No.1 is directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner subject to the following conditions. 1. The petitioner shall produce all the required documents such as registration certificate etc. 2. The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will produce the vehicle as and when required for the purpose of enquiry by respondent No.1 and the release of vehicle shall be subject to the liability that may be fastened on the petitioner in the pending proceedings. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.4606 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.02.2008 Note:- Issue CC in three days. ES To 1.2CCs 2.2CD copies