IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.4452 of 2008 Between: M/s. Thirumala Motor Transport Corporation, rep by Mrs. M. Padma P. No. 95, L.N.Puram,LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Assistant Secretary (Regional Transport Officer), Regional Transport Authority, Ranga Reddy (East), at Uppal. 2. The Motor Vehicles Inspector, Regional Transport Authority, Nizamabad. ...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 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the seizure of the petitioner's Vehicles bearing No. AP/29U-2690 seized under Vehicle check report No. 0278264, dated 27-2-2007 by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently direct the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioner forthwith and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may be deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SIVA RAMA KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.4452 of 2008 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) The petitioner’s motor vehicle bearing No.AP 29 U 2690 was seized by the second respondent on 27.02.2007 vide Vehicle Check Report No.0278264 for certain irregularities pointed out in the said vehicle check report. The seizure was affected under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not yet released the vehicle. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Transport. Since no purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle in the custody of the respondents and the vehicle would only get damaged, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to forthwith release the subject motor vehicle to the interim custody of the petitioner subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and on filing an undertaking that he would not transfer the vehicle pending enquiry and that he would produce the vehicle as and when the same is required by the respondent authorities in the course of enquiry and investigation. No order as to costs. With these directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) __________________ (C.Y.SOMAYAJULU, J) 3rd March 2008 Note: Wire at party’s cost B/O RRB