IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3525 of 2008 Between: 1 Mohd. Kareem Khan, S/o.Haji Azam Khan, R/o.Laxminarayanpur, yalal Mandal, R.R.Dist., 2 S.K.Ibrahim, S/o.S.K.Imam R/o.H.No. 8-8-60, Old Tandur, R.R.Dist., ..... PETITIONERS AND The Station House Officer, Tandur, R.R.District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to pass an order, or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare that the seizure of the vehicle vide vehicle bearing No.AP28X 5103 and registering a Crime No.25 of 2008 against the petitioner no.2 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Water, Land & Trees Act 2002 and consequently direct the Respondent to release the vehicle bearing No.AP28X 5103 in favour of petitioner No.1 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MRVENKATARAGHU RAMULU Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondent. Petitioners state that the first petitioner is the owner and the second petitioner is the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP28X 5103. In this writ petition, they have questioned the seizure of the above said vehicle by the respondent on 12-02-2007 on the ground that it was transporting sand unauthorisedly. The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner has valid goods carriage permit issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Ranga Reddy District and on the relevant date the transportation was being undertaken with necessary permit, hence, seizure of the vehicle is illegal. When the matter has come up before this Court on 21-02-2008, it was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader for Home to get instructions, in the matter, as to whether any case was registered against the petitioners and whether the vehicle was produced before the competent Magistrate. Today, on instructions, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Home that a case in Crime No.25 of 2008 was registered against the second petitioner, driver of the vehicle, before Tandur Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, but, however, the vehicle is not produced before the competent Magistrate. The normal course for the petitioners is to approach the Magistrate concerned seeking release of the vehicle, in case the seized vehicle is produced before the Magistrate. But, in this case, the vehicle was not produced before the Magistrate concerned, although it was seized on 12-02-2007, without any valid reason. In the absence of production of the vehicle before the Magistrate concerned, the petitioners now cannot move the Magistrate seeking release of the same. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission, directing the respondent to release the vehicle forthwith in favour of the first petitioner subject to his giving an undertaking that he will not transfer the vehicle to any third parties till appropriate final report is filed in Crime No.25 of 2008, Tandur Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J Dated 28th February, 2008 Note: Issue C.C by tomorrow (b/o) vrn ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Station House Officer, Tandur, R.R.District. 2. 2CCs to the G.P for Home 3. 2CD copies