Telangana High Court
WP/27291/2007 of Syed Shah Abdul Razzack Vs The Secretary on 24 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27291 OF 2007 Date: 24.12.2007 Between: Syed Shah Abdul Razzack . . .Petitioner AND The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Secunderabad and another . . .Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION
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.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.27291 OF2007
Date: 24.12.2007
Between:
Syed Shah Abdul Razzack
. . .PetitionerAND
The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority,Secunderabad and another . . .Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.27291 OF2007
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declareseizure of motor vehicle bearing registration No.AP10 N 7999 underVehicle Check Report No.0018857, dated 22.10.2007 as illegal,arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
On 20.12.2007, this Court adjourned the case to enable thelearned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport to getinstructions, but no instructions have been reported by him at thehearing of the case today. Since the vehicle has been under seizuresince 22.10.2007, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition.
A perusal of the Vehicle Check Report, under which, thepetitioner’s vehicle was seized shows that the petitioner has changedthe type of fuel from petrol to diesel without prior authorization to alterthe engine/type of fuel. The other two grounds of seizure are that theregistration mark backside is not as per Motor Vehicles Rules and thatno driving license was produced.
Without going into the merits of the grounds of seizure, I deem itappropriate to dispose of the writ petition, because if the petitioner hadviolated the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Rulesmade there under, the respondents are free to initiate appropriateaction against him according to law. I am of the view that even beforethe respondents initiate such proceedings, if the vehicle is detained,that would cause irreparable injury to the petitioner’s interest apartfrom causing deterioration in the condition of the vehicle. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 torelease the vehicle to the petitioner subject to the following conditions.
(1) The petitioner shall produce the driving license.
(2) The petitioner shall file an undertaking before respondentNo.1 thatNo.1 that a)the registration mark will be changed within a periodof three days from the date of release of the vehicle inconformity with the Motor Vehicles Rules, andof three days from the date of release of the vehicle inconformity with the Motor Vehicles Rules, and b)he will not alienate or in any manner alter the natureof the vehicle without the permission of respondentNo.1, andof the vehicle without the permission of respondentNo.1, and
(3) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when it isrequired by the respondents for the purpose of disposal ofthe proceedings, if any to be initiated by respondent No.1.required by the respondents for the purpose of disposal ofthe proceedings, if any to be initiated by respondent No.1.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
24[th] DECEMBER, 2007
Note: furnish c.c. in three (3) days. B/o kvni