THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25073 of 2011 Dated 07th September, 2011 Between: Raghunadha Varma …Petitioner And The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, West Godavari Region, Bhimavaram and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.Aravind 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.2 in seizing and detaining the petitioner’s tractor and trailer, bearing registration Nos.AP 16Y 3149 and AP 05 Y 2224, under vehicle check report No.1616564, dated 15.04.2011, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to release the seized tractor and trailer. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader Transport. Under vehicle check report, dated 15.04.2011, respondent No.2 has seized the petitioner’s tractor and trailer on the following allegations: “1. Trailer plying without exhibiting Registration Number, Chassis Number not visible on the vehicle; 2. RC for tractor and trailer not produced; 3. w/o tax proof; 4. w/o valid DL; 5. w/o valid Fitness certificate; 6. w/o permit proof and 7. w/o valid F/C” The petitioner has evidently moved respondent No.1 for release of the seized tractor and trailer by producing the original documents. By Memo, bearing R.No.XNDIS/C6/2011, dated 13.05.2011, respondent No.1 directed respondent No.2 to verify the details of the seized tractor and trailer with that borne out by the record produced by the petitioner and report compliance for taking further action. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said direction, no further action has been taken and the seized tractor along with the trailer has not been released. Even though the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted at the hearing that according to his oral instructions, the petitioner has not submitted his application for release of the seized tractor and trailer, this submission is apparently contrary to the Memo, dated 13.05.2011, of respondent No.1 referred to above. Unless the petitioner made an application with a request to release the seized vehicles, there would not have been any occasion to respondent No.1 to issue the said Memo. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the petitioner has approached respondent No.1 with a request to release the seized vehicles. Inasmuch as seizure has taken place as far back as 15.04.2011, I find no justification whatsoever for respondent No.1 in not taking decision on the petitioner’s request for release of the seized vehicles. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to pass an appropriate order on the basis of the documents produced by the petitioner and with reference to the details available on record with regard to the seized tractor and trailer within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.30836 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 07th September, 2011 VGB