Telangana High Court
WP/24599/2004 of Abdul Shukur Vs The Deputy Transport Commissioner AND on 29 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 24599 of 2004 Between: Abdul Shukur S/o Sk.Nanne Sab H.No.1-60, Bashirabad, Kammarapally
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANUWRIT PETITION NO : 24599 of 2004
Between:
Abdul Shukur S/o Sk.Nanne Sab H.No.1-60, Bashirabad, Kammarapally Mandal, Nizamabad District
AND
..... PETITIONER
1. The Deputy Transport Commissioner & Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Nizamabad. 2 The Motor Vehicle Inspector.
Armoor, Nizamabad. District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may bepleased to Issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature ofWrit of Mandamus declaring the seizure and continued detention of petitioner'sMaxicab bearing Regd.No.AP 25U 1403 seized under Vehicle Check ReportNo.0076884, dt. 16/12/2004 by the 2[nd] respondent i.e., the Motor VehicleInspector, Armoor, Nizmabad District as illegal, unjust , arbitrary,unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and consequently direct therespondents to forthwith release the petitioner's vehicle Maxicab bearing Regd.No.AP 25 U 1403, to the petitioner.Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAJANIKANTH JWALA
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT
The Court at the admission stage, made the following:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 24599 of 2004
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to therespondents to release his Vehicle Maxicab bearing Regd.No.AP 25 U 1403.
2 . The 2[n d ]respondent seized the petitioner’s vehicle under check reportbearing No.0076884, dated 16-12-2004 for violation of certain irregularities andkept vehicle under detention in the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Office, Armoor.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is apoor educated unemployee and that he made a representation, dated 16-12-2004 to the 1[st] respondent requesting him to release the vehicle, but the 1[st]respondent refused to release the vehicle. Therefore, he prays to grant interimcustody of the vehicle to the petitioner. The counsel has further contended thatif any violations are made, the petitioner will be liable to pay the amount.
4. The learned Government Pleader for Transport has opposed the applicationfiled by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has to approach the 1[st]respondent-Transport authority for grant of interim custody of the vehicle andappropriate orders have to be passed by the 1[st] respondent, but the petitioner, without approaching the 1[st] respondent has filed this writ petition.
5. As per the check report, dated 16.12.2004, the 2[nd] respondent seized thevehicle of the petitioner for violation of certain irregularities. Though it isasserted in the affidavit that the petitioner made a representation, dated16.12.2004, the 1[st] respondent has not taken any steps for grant of interimcustody of the vehicle since the vehicle is being used for the purpose ofcarrying the passengers. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the interimcustody of the vehicle to the petitioner.
6. In the light of the above circumstances, the 1[st] respondent-Deputy TransportCommissioner is directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner for interimcustody on condition that the petitioner deposits Rs.7,500/- (Rupees SevenThousand Five Hundred Only) on the following terms and conditions.
1. that the petitioner shall not transfer the vehicle to any other personwithout the permission of the 1[st] respondent.without the permission of the 1[st] respondent.
2. that the petitioner shall not change the engine or any part of thevehicle.vehicle.
3. that the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when required bythe authorities concerned.the authorities concerned.
4. that the petitioner shall participate in the enquiry that is going to beconducted by the 1[st] respondent after receipt of show cause noticeby filing his explanation.conducted by the 1[st] respondent after receipt of show cause noticeby filing his explanation.
5. that the tax, if any, may be adjusted out of the amount deposited by thepetitioner.petitioner.
The 2[nd] respondent may take further steps for recovery of the tax from thepetitioner.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above directions.There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________
Note:
Wire at party’s costs.
B/o.
Kvr
To
1. The Deputy Transport Commissioner &
Secretary, regional Transport Authority, Nizamabad.
2 The Motor Vehicles Inspector. Armoor,
Nizamabad. District.
3 Two CCs to G.P. for Transport,
High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).
4. Two C.D copies.