IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8491 of 2009 Between: M/s. Advanced Radio Marts Limited, represented by P. Sambasiva Rao, S/o.P.Hanumanth Rao H.No.7-139, Habsiguda, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Deputy Transport Commissioner and the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT 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 especially one in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records of the orders passed in proceeding No.R.No.7/B3/2008 dated 17.04.2009 and quash the same. As the same is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Apart from a non speaking order Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by the learned Government Pleader for Transport appearing for the respondent. 2. Looking to the facts of the case, the learned advocates have requested to hear the matter today and accordingly, the petition is finally heard today. 3. The petitioner has challenged the validity of demand notice dated 17-04-2009. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that by virtue of the demand notice not only the amount of tax but the amount of penalty has also been demanded from the petitioner. It is its case that it can challenge the validity of the order where the penalty is imposed. In the instant case, there is a composite order and, therefore, it would be difficult for it to challenge imposition of penalty by filing an appeal. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Transport appearing for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner did not pay tax in respect of the vehicle in question for about six years. It has been further submitted by him that it would be open for the petitioner to challenge the validity of imposition of penalty by filing an appeal and simply because there is a composite order, it would not be prevented from challenging the order so far as it pertains to imposition of penalty. 6. Upon hearing the learned advocates and looking to the facts of the case, it is directed that if the petitioner pays the entire amount of tax and deposits one-third of the amount of penalty, the vehicle shall be released. Needless to say that it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the validity of the order whereby penalty was imposed upon him. The amount of penalty deposited by the petitioner shall be subject to final orders as and when the penalty proceedings are over. It is also directed that the petitioner shall file an undertaking before the respondent that till the penalty proceedings are concluded, the vehicle in question shall not be transferred or any right in respect of the said vehicle shall be created in any third party. 7. In view of the above direction, the petition stands disposed of as allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 23rd April, 2009. Note: Furnish CC by tomorrow. B/O ks