IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 5128 of 2009 Between: Alluri Nanaji S/o.Ganga Reddy Bearing No.AP01-D-9472 and MH-29C-5221 R/o.Jainath village and Mandal Adilabad District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Adilabad, Adilabad District 2 The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Integrated Check Post Bhoraj, Adilabad, Adilabad District .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the seizure and continued detention of the petitioner’s vehicle i.e. Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No.AP 01 D 9472 and MH-29-C 5221 seized under vehicle check report No.0863215 dated 2.3.2009 by the 2nd respondent and continued detention by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, improper unjust, unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release the petitioner’s vehicle i.e. Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No.AP 01-D 9472 and MH 29-C 5221 forthwith to the petitioner pending enquiry. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. S. SURENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per the Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The petitioner has made a grievance in this petition that his vehicles, namely, Tractor and Trailor bearing Nos.AP 01D 9472 and MH 29C 5221 have been seized by the respondent authorities. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of an application dt.6.3.2009 submitted to the respondent No.1, no action has been taken by the respondent No.1 for release of the aforesaid vehicles. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted that the application dt.6.3.2009 has not been received by the respondent No.1. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner would make a fresh application to respondent No.1 so that needful can be done for release of the vehicles in accordance with law. 5. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that if an application is made to respondent No.1, the same shall be disposed of within ten days from the date of receipt of the application. 6. In view of the above statement made by the learned Government Pleader, it is directed that the respondent No.1 shall dispose of the application in accordance with law within ten days from the date of receipt of the application by him. 7. In view of the above direction, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 21.4.2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J bnr