THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 4886 of 2010 Date: 04.03.2010 Between: D. Satyanarayana … Petitioner and The Regional Transport Authority, Krishna District, Vijayawada and another. … Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 4886 of 2010 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order of the 2nd respondent in seizing his vehicle, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. The vehicle in question was checked when it was plying from Phaykapuram to Suryapeta on 20.02.2010. In his check report the 2nd respondent noted certain irregularities such as no proof of tax having been paid for quarter ending 31.03.2010; pollution and control certificate not being available and insurance charges not having been paid. The petitioner claims to have sought release of the vehicle under Rule 448-B of the Motor Vehicles Rules but the 1st respondent did not entertain the said application. Under Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 any person authorized by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or without the permit required by Section 66(1) or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, seize and detain the vehicle in the prescribed manner and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle. Under Section 207(2), where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under sub-section (1), the owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle may apply to the transport authority, or any office authorized in this behalf by the State Government, together with relevant documents for the release of the vehicle and such authority or officer may, after verification of such documents, by order release the vehicle subject to such conditions as the authority or officer may deem fit to impose. Rule 448-B of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 relates to release of seized and detained vehicles and, under sub-rule (1) thereof, an application for release of the vehicle, seized and detained under sub-section (1) of Section 207, shall be in the form of a memorandum in duplicate with relevant documents duly enclosing a fee of rupees twenty five. A Division Bench of this Court in Saleem Tours and Travels v. Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary, RTA, Hyderabad[1] held that detention of a motor vehicle should not continue beyond a short period unless such detention is essential to facilitate finalization of the enquiry or to ensure compliance with the ultimate order passed. The Division Bench further held that the reasonable time for the competent authority to pass an order, on a request being made for release of the vehicle, should be 3 days after the application has been made in this behalf. The Division Bench also held that in case no order is passed within a reasonable period, or onerous conditions are imposed, resort could be had to the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the person aggrieved. Following the judgment of the Division Bench in Saleem Tours and Travels1, I consider it appropriate to permit the petitioners to submit an application seeking release of the vehicle. Sri G. Simhadri, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, states that such an application would be made within two days from today. In case such an application is made the 1st respondent shall, within three days from the date of receipt of the application, pass orders thereupon in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioners herein forthwith. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. Date: 04.03.2010 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J MRKR 1