THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.15878 of 2011 Dated:17.06.2011 Between: G.Sreenivasa Rao, S/o.Ramulu. …Petitioner And The Registering Transport Authority, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.15878 of 2011 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is the owner of Ashok Leyland bus bearing Registration No.AP 16 W 8485. The bus was detained under vehicle check report (VCR) dated 17.05.2011 by the third respondent. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition, being W.P.No.14507 of 2011. The same was disposed of by this Court on 31.05.2011 directing the first respondent to dispose of the application to be made by the petitioner for release of the vehicle under Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), read with Rule 448B of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (the Rules). Thereafter, the petitioner made an application to the first respondent seeking release of the detained vehicle. The second respondent issued show cause notice dated 07.06.2011 as to why the difference of tax totaling to Rs.69,300/- and penalty should not be collected from the petitioner. Without submitting any explanation to the show cause notice the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when this Court has directed the first respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for release of the vehicle under Section 207 of the Act and Rule 448B of the Rules, it was wrong on the part of the first respondent not to release the vehicle. He would also submit that the petitioner is willing to pay 50% of the difference of the tax and as the bus has been detained for more than a month, the same may be ordered to be released. From the impugned show cause notice against which ordinarily a writ petition would not lie, it is not clear whether the first respondent has considered the application if any made by the petitioner for release of the detained vehicle. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to give liberty to the petitioner to approach the first respondent himself for release of the vehicle notwithstanding the proceedings for recovery of difference tax and the penalty thereon. As this Court has already passed an order in the earlier writ petition, being W.P.No.14507 of 2011, it is not proper for this Court to pass again an order directing release of the vehicle. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 17.06.2011 vs