The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.11880 of 2011 Date: 10.10.2011 Between: Mucherla Ramalakshmi ..... Petitioner AND 1.Senior Environmental Engineer, A.P.Pollution Control Board Task Force, Plot No.41, Sri Kanakadurga Officer’s Colony, Gurunanak Road, Vijayawada-8, Krishna District and 2 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N.Sreerama Murthy Counsel for respondent No.1: None appeared Counsel for respondent No.2: AGP for Transport Counsel for respondent No.3: None appeared The Court made the following: Order: The petitioner is the owner of truck bearing registration No.AP 16 TW 3928. On 18-18-2010, the said vehicle was seized by the task force officials of respondent No.1 on the ground that the same was found being used for transporting and dumping natural effluents brought from the industry belonging to one Mr.M.Durga Prasad. The petitioner approached respondent No.1 for release of the said vehicle. As her efforts have proved futile, she has filed the present Writ Petition for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1, in seizing her vehicle and retaining its possession, as illegal. Even though notice was served on respondent No.1, no one has entered appearance on his behalf. I have heard Sri N.Sreerama Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport representing respondent No.2. As respondent No.1 failed to respond to the notice, this Court is unable to know the exact reason for keeping the petitioner’s vehicle in his custody and whether any case has been registered and proceedings are kept pending. This Court, however, finds that continued detention of the petitioner’s vehicle on the allegation that it was used for carrying hazardous chemicals is neither fair nor proper. If respondent No.1 feels that the petitioner’s vehicle was used in commission of an offence or in violation of statutory provisions, he can only initiate appropriate proceedings in law and conclude the same within a reasonable time so that the petitioner will know where she stands. In the light of the above-mentioned facts, the petitioner is permitted to make a comprehensive representation to respondent No.1 within one week from today. Within one week of receiving such representation, respondent No.1 shall examine the same, pass an appropriate order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Subject to the above-direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.14533 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 10th October, 2011 LUR