THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.24356 of 2011 Dated 29th August, 2011 Between: M/s.S.V.S.Mookambika Constructions Private Limited …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Transport Roads & Buildings Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.V.N.Narasimham Counsel for respondents: AGP for Transport The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in seizing the Motor Grader GD 31H Part Serial No.3686 (for short ‘the equipment’) and not releasing the same as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the equipment, which is evidently used in construction activity. When the said equipment was being brought from Madakasira, Anantapur District to the petitioner’s business place at Vizianagaram, by loading the same on the lorry bearing No.KA 27-A 0826, the same was seized by respondent No.3 near Gannavaram, Krishna District on 13.08.2011 on the ground that no life tax was paid in respect of the equipment and that it was not registered. In this writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded that the equipment does not fall under the definitions of “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) or under any of the descriptions contained in Rule 2(ca) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Admittedly, the petitioner has not made an application before respondent No.2, who is competent to receive and consider the applications for release of the seized vehicles/equipment under Section 207 of the Act r/w Rule 448-B of the A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Unless the petitioner moves respondent No.2 in the first instance and fails to get release of the seized equipment, it cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent No.2 with an application seeking release of the seized equipment. Within one week of receipt of such application, respondent No.2 shall consider the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the State and the Central Rules made thereunder, and pass appropriate order. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by such order, it shall be free to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.29894 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th August, 2011 Note: Issue CC by 02.09.2011 (b/o) VGB