IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTYFIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 6 4 8 9 of 2010 Between : D.Satyanarayana, s/o Kistaiah, aged about 36 years, Occupation Business, r/o. D.Nbo.4-25, Karnamguda village, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy district. ..... Petitioner V/s. The Registering Authority, Medak district, Sangaredddy & 2-Ors. ..... Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri G.Simhadri Counsel for the Respondents: Govt.Pleader for Transport The Division Bench of this Court made the following : (Order follows 2nd page) THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 6 4 8 9 of 2010 ORAL ORDER : { Per the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T.Meenakumari } Seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the second respondent in issuing Proceedings vide R.No. 7745/C3/2010 dated 06-3-2010 in directing the petitioner to pay tax and penalty to vehicle bearing Registration No.AP-23M-0923 (JCB) as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to release the said vehicle to the petitioner in the interest of justice and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The facts of the case are that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that one Sri N.Satyanarayana son of Narsasaiah purchased vehicle JCB bearing registration No.AP- 23M 0923 and the same was registered with the first respondent herein on 13-8-2007 and the same was under the finance of SREI Infrastructure Finance LT, 202 and 203, 2nd floor Saptagiri Towers, Begumpet, Hyderabad, and thereafter, the petitioner purchased the same on 22-7-2009 with consent financier and obtained agreement with the original purchaser and sale was under process and from that date onwards he is paying taxes and other dues to the respondents and EMI to the financier and thus he became the owner of the said vehicle and paying tax to the first respondent and plying the vehicle without any contravention of AP Motor Vehicle Act and Rules. 3. It is stated that on 20-2-2010 when the said vehicle was plying from Phayakpuram to Suryapet it was checked by the second respondent by making certain allegations and found irregularities; namely, no proof of tax with effect Q.E. 31-3-10 PUC certificate, NI Produced and the said vehicle was kept at fair station Nuzvidu for safe custody. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WP.No.4886 of 2010 and sought mandamus to declare the action of the second respondent in seizing and detaining his vehicle bearing No.AP-23M- 0923 vide vehicle check report No.442707 dated 20-2-2010 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to release the vehicle forthwith to him. Thereupon this court while disposing the said writ petition, this court directed to make an application within two days from the date of order and on filing such application the first respondent shall consider the same within three days from the date of receipt of application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner. 4. Pursuant to the orders passed by this court in WP.No. 4886 of 2010 the petitioner made an application on 06-3-2010 along with copy of the order in WP.No.4886 of 2010 to the first respondent seeking to release the aforesaid vehicle. 5. It is stated that the second respondent issued show cause notice R.No.7745/C3/2010 dated 06-3-2010 stating that the said vehicle is plying without tax payment from 01-10-2007 till date. In view of the vehicle check report referred in the reference, the petitioner is liable for tax with penalty mentioned therein under the provisions of Section6 of AP Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 13 of AP Motor Vehicle Rules, 1963 apart from compounding fee for the violations under section 200 of Motor Vehicle Act and further directed to show cause as to why the tax and penalty mentioned therein should not be collected from him in respect of Fork Lift AP 23 MO923 within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which, exparte orders will be passed basing on the material available on record. 6. It is submitted by Sri G.Simhadri, the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the first respondent, but the first respondent did not consider the application made by the petitioner in pursuance of the orders passed by this court in WP.No. 4886 of 2010. Thereafter, the second respondent issued the show cause notice impugned in this writ petition directing the petitioner to pay the tax and penalty under the provisions of Section6 of AP Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 13 of AP Motor Vehicle Rules, 1963 apart from compounding fee for the violations under section 200 of Motor Vehicle Act and further directed to show cause as to why the tax and penalty mentioned therein should not be collected from him in respect of Fork Lift AP 23 MO923 within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which, exparte orders will be passed basing on the material available on record. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Transport. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed off at the stage of admission directing the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000-00 (Rs. Ten Thousand only), pursuant to the impugned show cause notice, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However, the petitioner shall furnish undertaking before the concerned respondent-authority that he shall not alienate, encumber, diminish its value, colour, change of spare parts etc., and the said vehicle shall be produced as and when required by the respondents. However, we further make it clear that this order will not preclude the respondents from conducting regular enquiry in pursuance of the impugned show cause notice. 9. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed off at the stage of admission. However, in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ___________________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao March 25, 2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOORTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 6 4 8 9 OF 2010 Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) Circulation Entry No. Date: 25-03-2010 COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L