HOUNOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.11346 of 2010 Between: V.S.Bhadrachalam ………Petitioner And The Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur and another. ………Respondents HOUNOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.11346 of 2010 ORDER:(Per NA,J) This writ petition is filed assailing the seizure of contract carriage vehicle bearing Regn. No.KA-01-C-9639 by the 2nd respondent under vehicle check Report Nos.389143 and 389144, dated 04-05-2010. 2. The petitioner is the registered owner of Contract Carriage Vehicle Regn. No.KA-01-C-9639, presently on the rolls of the Regional Transport Officer, Office of the Regional Transport Authority, Pondicherry. The petitioner states that the vehicle is covered by all the relevant documents such as Registration Certificate, Fitness Certificate and Pollution Control Certificate and State wide contract carriage Permit No.PC.OC 139/PY/CC/0B/1994 which is valid up to 14-12-2014. The petitioner states that home state tax in respect of vehicle has been paid up to the quarter ending 30-06-2010. 3. It is stated that the petitioner obtained a special permit from the registering authority, office of the Transport Authority, Pondicherry, to carry a tourist party to visit several places including Puttaparthi, Ananthapur, Kurnool and Hyderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The permit was valid from 04-05-2010 to 10-05-2010. The vehicle was checked by the 2nd respondent on 04-05-2010 and seized alleging that the tour, as per the special permit, in stead of commencing from Pondicherry, actually commenced from Bangalore, and therefore, violated the conditions of permit, thereby, the petitioner became liable to pay tax to the A.P. State Tax @ Rs.3675/- per seat for usage. 4. The petitioner appears to have approached the 1st respondent for release of the vehicle and it is asserted that the 1st respondent declined to release the vehicle. Substantial allegation for seizing the vehicle is that the conditions of permit under which the petitioner was required to operate his vehicle was violated. This allegation requires to be enquired into by the 1st respondent after due notice to the petitioner. However, for the purpose of such enquiry, the detention of the vehicle is not required. The interest of the State can be protected by imposing necessary conditions while releasing the vehicle. 5. In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to release the aforesaid vehicle subject to however with the following conditions: 1. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with the 1st respondent; 2. The petitioner should execute an undertaking before the 1st respondent that he would not alienate, transfer or otherwise encumber or alter the vehicle pending enquiry; 3. The petitioner shall produce the vehicle if necessary and required by the 1st respondent for the purpose of enquiry; and 4. The amount depositing shall be subject to the result of enquiry. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR 12th May 2010 ______​_______________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI kvr