IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 24857 of 2008 Between: Suresh Babu S/o Ramanna H.No.154/A Arundi(V) Bellary Taluk,Karnataka State ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Deputy Transport Commissioner & Secretary Regional Transport Authority Anantapur District 2 Motor Vehicle Inspector Guntakal, Anantapur .....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 to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seizing and detaining the petitioner's Light Motor Vehicle bearing Registration No.KA 37/9155 pursuant to the Vehicle Check Report No.426052 dt 18-10-2008 of the 2nd respondent as illegal arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to release the said vehicle to the petitioner herein without insisting upon payments of any tax forthwith and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.E.MARUTHI RAJA 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 : 24857 of 2008 ORAL ORDER : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 1. The writ petition is ﬁled seeking mandamus to declare the action of respondents in seizing and detaining the petitioner’s light motor vehicle bearing Regdn.No. KA-34/9155 pursuant to the vehicle check report No.426052, dated 18-10-2008 of the second respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to release the said vehicle to the petitioner without insisting upon payment of any tax, forthwith, and to pass such other suitable orders as this court may deems ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The facts in brief are as follows: It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of a light motor vehicle bearing Regdn.No.KA-34/9155 having seating capacity of 12 in all covered by All India Maxi Cabi permit, issued by the Karnataka STA Bangalore for a period of ﬁve years valid upto 01-11-2012. The said vehicle is covered by the valid documents like RC., IC., etc. The petitioner has been using the said vehicle by payment of tax and authorisation to the Home State i.e., State of Karnataka. 3. While things stood thus, on 18-10-2008 the second respondent stopped and checked the vehicle near Uravakonda and issued a vehicle check report No.426052 alleging that the documents of the vehicle were not produced viz., permit, RC.l, IC. And that there is no proof of payment of tax to AP State and hence, the vehicle is seized under section 8 of APMV Taxation Act and kept the same at Uravakonda Police Station for safe custody. 4. It is stated that consequent upon the seizure and detention of the said vehicle, the petitioner made an application before the ﬁrst respondent on 31-10-2008 along with the documents of the vehicle requesting him to release the same stating that the vehicle is covered by valid permit issued by the State Karnataka Transport Authorities and permitted to operate the same as Maxi Cab throughout India. But the first respondent instead of passing the releasing order, insisting upon payment of tax to AP State for three quarters without there being any liability of payment of tax to the AP State in respect of the said vehicle. 5. It is stated that the vehicle is covered by valid All India Maxi Cab permit issued by KSTA Bangalore valid upto 01-11-2012 and as such there is no liability for payment of any tax to Andhra Pradesh State by the petitioner. But the ﬁrst respondent had not taken any action to release the vehicle. The respondents are not likely to release the said vehicle, unless the petitioner pays the tax at the rate applicable for a Maxi Cab, even though the petitioner is not liable to pay any tax. On account of illegal seizure and detention of the petitioner’s vehicle, the petitioner is put to great hardship already. Further the vehicle is kept in open space exposed to sun and rain as such the condition of the vehicle is deteriorating day by day. Unless the said vehicle is released to the petitioner immediately, the petitioner suffers irreparable loss and injury. 6. The contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner is vehemently opposed by the learned Government Pleader for Transport and further submitted that on 18-10-2008 at about 04:00 a.m., when the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Guntakal was on inspection, he stopped and checked the vehicle bearing Regdn.No. KA- 34/9155 while it was proceeding to Hospet from Ananathyapur and found that R.C., I.C., PUC were not produced. No permit and payment of tax to AP State. Therefore, the vehicle seized under section 8 of APMV Act and kept at Uravakonda Police Station. Further the petitioner failed to comply the conditions speciﬁed under section 84 and sub-section (11) of Section 88 of the MV Act, 1988 the permit is subject to the conditions stipulated in Form KMV-49 (Rule 64 (l) (ix). 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Govt.Pleader for Transport. 8. In view of the above contentions and having regard to the fact that enquiry is pending, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission with a direction to the respondents to release the vehicle bearing Regdn.No.KA-34/9155 seized under check report no.426052, dated 18-10-2008 subject to the condition of payment of Rs.20,790=00 (Rs.Twenty thousand, seven hundred and ninty only) of the tax assessed by the second respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on furnishing an undertaking to the eﬀect that the vehicle in question will not be alienated and no encumbrance will be created and shall produce the said vehicle as and when required by the respondents. However, this order does not preclude the respondents from conducting enquiry into the irregularities committed by the petitioner. It is also made clear that the amount paid pursuant to this order, shall be subject to the result of the enquiry. 7. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN 13-11-2008. I s L NB: Furnish CC today. B/o. I s L .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}