THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.3554 of 2011 Dated:22.02.2011 Between: Visakha Container Terminal Pvt.Ltd. …Petitioner And The Transport Commissioner, Hyderabad, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.3554 of 2011 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner, statedly, a joint venture was set up under the aegis of Visakhapatnam Port Trust for providing the Container Terminal of the port with modern and efficient infrastructure. Among others, it owns Ship to Shore Gantry Cranes, Transfer Cranes and Reach Stackers in Yard. These handle containers weighing 45 tons and shift them from place to place. It appears, respondent Nos.2 and 3 visited the petitioner’s Container Terminal and prepared nine Vehicle Check Reports. The Officials, statedly, pointed out that the petitioner’s movable equipments/vehicles are liable to life tax under the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963, as amended by A.P.Act 11 of 2010. In furtherance of the Vehicle Check Reports the second respondent sent a communication, being R.No.0415/A2/2011, dated 18.01.2011. While informing that rubber tyred, rubber padded or steel drum wheel mounted, self propelled, excavator, loader backhoe, compactor roller, dumper, motor grade, mobiles cranes, Dozers, Forklift, self loading concrete mixer are categorized as non- transport vehicles; they require registration as per Rule 2 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989; and, as per the clarification issued by the first respondent, the petitioner is liable to pay life tax at 7.5% of the cost of the vehicle, the second respondent directed the petitioner to produce the vehicle documents within seven days. In response to the communication dated 18.01.2011 the petitioner sent a reply, being Red.VCTPL/RTO/2011/020, dated 25.01.2011, informing that all the equipments operating in their Terminal are specialized only in handling containers; they are adopted for use in an enclosed premises and, therefore, do not fall under the category of construction equipment. The petitioner also enclosed invoices and other documents in respect of the equipment. The second respondent is yet to pass any order or issue a demand notice. Apprehending that there might be coercive action against them, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing communication dated 18.01.2011 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner sent a communication and also enclosed invoices and documents in response to the impugned communication. If that be so, it is for the second respondent to verify the actual position on the ground with reference to the clarification offered by the petitioner on 25.01.2011 and pass appropriate orders. It would be in the interest of fairness that, unless and until such an order is passed, the respondents may not initiate any coercive action. The second respondent may consider the communication dated 25.01.2011 and 04.02.2011 sent by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We feel that this order would be sufficient redressal for the present to the grievance raised in the writ petition. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 22.02.2011 vs