IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.209 OF 2011; WRIT PETITION NO.4208 OF 2011; AND CONTEMPT CASE NO.281 OF 2011 DATED:19.4.2011 WRIT APPEAL NO.209 OF 2011 Between: The Additional Secretary Regional Transport Authority Tirupathi, Chittoor District and another … Appellants And Sri Younus Ahmed … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.209 OF 2011; WRIT PETITION NO.4208 OF 2011; AND CONTEMPT CASE NO.281 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) 1. State being aggrieved of the order passed in W.V.M.P. No.892 of 2011 and W.P.M.P. No.5201 of 2011 arising out of W.P. No.4208 of 2011 dt.18.3.2011, requiring the State - appellant to release the vehicle subject to payment of Rs.25,000/-, hence this writ appeal. After arguing for a while, the learned counsel for the parties agreed to final disposal of the Writ Appeal along with the connected writ petition and the contempt case. In that view of the matter record of writ petition and contempt case was sent for and writ appeal is taken up for final disposal along with writ petition and contempt case. 2. Learned Counsel for the respondent - writ petitioner has joined issue in respect of seating capacity of the vehicle. According to him seating capacity of the vehicle is 48 + 2 = 50 and not 64 + 1 = 65. Responding to the submission, learned counsel for the State submits that in case the writ petitioner satisfies the respondent-competent authority that the capacity is exaggerated, order can be revised on that count. In the said back drop, the writ appeal and the writ petition are disposed of in the following terms. (i) “Respondent/ writ petitioner to file objections if any to the demand notice within one week and thereupon, appellants - respondents shall re-examine the demand notice dt.22.3.2011 and shall issue a fresh notice after giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent – writ petitioner; (ii) The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the respondent – writ petitioner shall be adjusted against the demand raised and to satisfy the demand notice dt.22.3.2011, the petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee for half of the remaining amount and third party security by a resident of the State for the other half of remaining amount to the satisfaction of Regional Transport Authority, Tirupati. On compliance of above, the vehicle shall be released in favour of the respondent - writ petitioner. 3. In view of the order aforementioned, Contempt Case does not survive. Dismissed. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 19-4-2011 Note: C.C. in three days. (B.O) B. Narsinga Rao