Telangana High Court
WP/24995/2004 of J.Srinivas Reddy Vs The Secretary Regional Transport Authority on 31 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 24995 of 2004 Between: J.Srinivas Reddy S/o.Hanumanth Reddy Kapanur Village, Kishanpeta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 24995 of 2004
Between:
J.Srinivas Reddy S/o.Hanumanth ReddyKapanur Village, Kishanpeta Mandal,Mahaboobnagar District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1. The Secretary Regional Transport AuthorityMahaboobnagar,Mahaboobnagar Dist.2. The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Mahaboobnagar,Mahaboobnagar 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 be pleased toissue an order, direction or writ more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondents in seizing and detaining the petitioner'svehicle Omini Bus (Commandar Jeep) bearing Registration No. AP 22 D 2891 andvehicle Check Report No. 115925, dated 13-12-2004 as illegal, arbitrary and unjustand consequently direct the respondents to release the Omini Bus (CommandarJeep) bearing Registration No. AP 22 D 2891 to the petitioner herein in interest ofjustice and pass such further other order or orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.RAVI MOHAN
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Page 1 of 2
The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle Omini Bus (Commandar Jeep) bearingRegistration No.AP 22 D 2891. The said vehicle was seized under Vehicle CheckReport dated 13.12.2004 by the second respondent on the ground that the petitionerfailed to produce the documents of the vehicle at the time of checking.
The petitioner contends that he made an application for release of the vehicle, butthe 1[st] respondent did not entertain the same and the enquiry regarding the disposalof the vehicle is pending before the 1[st] respondent.
The petitioner is at liberty to approach the 1[st] respondent and produce thedocuments of the vehicle, if any, with him to enable the 1[st] respondent to passappropriate orders. The 1[st] respondent has to consider as to whether the petitionerviolated any provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and whether the vehicle was nothaving valid documents or not.
The petitioner further submits that the vehicle is lying idle and it is exposed to sunand rain and if it remains like that, it is likely to be damaged. Therefore, he seeks adirection to the 1[st] respondent to release the vehicle for interim custody.
In view of the representation made by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed ofdirecting the first respondent to grant interim custody of the vehicle in question to thepetitioner on her depositing a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) withthe following conditions:
i. that the vehicle in question shall not be alienated or transferred to anyother person;other person;
ii. that the vehicle shall be produced as and when required by theconcerned authority;concerned authority;
iii. that the amount deposited shall be adjusted, if the authority found that the petitioner violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Actand Rules framed thereunder;
iv. in the circumstances no order as to costs.
____________K.C.BHANU,J.Date: 31[st] December 2004.BSBASSISTANT REGISTRAR// TRUE COPY //SECTION OFFICERTo1. The Secretary,Regional Transport AuthorityMahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District.2. The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Mahaboobnagar,Mahaboobnagar District.3. Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Transport, High court of A.P.,Hyderabad (OUT).4. Two C.D. copies
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…