THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.10090 of 2009 ORDER (Per VE,J): Heard both the learned counsel and at their request, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. The case of the petitioner is that he is the lawful owner and possessor of the Idle Contract Carriage Vehicle bearing Registration No.AP 09 W 9279 having seating capacity of 36 in all. He purchased the said vehicle on 01.05.2009. When the said vehicle was parked in the open place near New Life Hospital, in front of Chaderghat Hospital, Hyderabad, which is near to the residence of the petitioner, the same was seized by the financer M/s.Bung Finance Corporation Ltd., since he became defaulter in payment of instalments of Hire Purchase Agreement entered with the said financer. After repayment of the loan, the Hire Purchase Agreement was cancelled and the vehicle was registered in the name of the petitioner. While so, the said vehicle was also altered increasing the seating capacity from 36 to 50, as envisaged under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). While so, on 07.05.2009, the second respondent-Motor Vehicles Inspector, Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad East Zone, Hyderabad issued the Vehicle Check Report No.2759658, dated 07.05.2009 for the following irregularities: (1) No proof of Tax payment for the Quarter Ending 30.06.2009 (2) Permit and I.C not produced. (3) On physical inspection of the vehicle the seating capacity of the vehicle found 50 in all as against seating capacity 36 in all as per the R.C.”B” extract i.e., unauthorized alteration of the seating capacity. Hence, he seized the vehicle under Sections 8 and 207 of the Act and kept the same at RTA/Nagole Driving Track. It is stated that the petitioner made a representation under Section 207(2) of the Act before the first respondent-Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad Central for release of the said vehicle. It is also stated that necessary documents were also enclosed along with the said representation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it just and proper to direct the first respondent to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 08.05.2009, if the same is received and pending, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. V.ESWARAIAH, J VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Date: 13.05.2009 va