Telangana High Court
WP/33479/2010 of K. Venugopal Rao Vs The Regional Transport Authority on 30 December 2010
R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.33479 of 2010 Date: December 30, 2010 Between: K. Venugopal Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Aged about 32 years, R/o.5th Lane, Gandhi Nagar, Chimakurthy (P&M), Prakasam District … Petitioner And The Regional Transport Authority, Rep. by its Secretary,
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
Writ Petition No.33479 of 2010
Between:
Date: December 30, 2010
K. Venugopal Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu,Aged about 32 years, R/o.5[th] Lane,Gandhi Nagar, Chimakurthy (P&M),Prakasam District … Petitioner
And
The Regional Transport Authority,Rep. by its Secretary, Ongole,Prakasam District, and another … Respondents
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:
This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus declaring theaction of the second respondent-Motor Vehicle Inspector, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, in seizing the vehicle of thepetitioner bearing No.
AP-27-Y-3499 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently todirect the respondents to release the said vehicle.
The second respondent-Motor Vehicle Inspector,Narasaraopet, Guntur District, stopped the vehicle in questionon 27-12-2010 while it was proceeding towards Khammamfrom Chimakurthy with a load of granite blocks on the groundthat it was overloaded by 5490 kgs. and seized the same.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Pleader for Transport.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thevehicle is not overloaded; in spite of the same it was seizedillegally.
Whether the vehicle in question was overloaded or notis a matter which is in the domain of the respondents and thesame has to be determined in the enquiry by the competentauthority.
In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose ofthe writ petition directing the respondents to release thevehicle of the petitioner bearing No.AP-27-Y-3499 subject topayment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) by thepetitioner and also executing an undertaking that he will notalienate the vehicle or create any third party interests thereon and will produce the same as and when required by theauthorities. However, the enquiry may go on. Needless tomention that the aforesaid amount to be deposited by thepetitioner will be subject to final orders to be passed by thecompetent authority on conclusion of enquiry.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order asto costs.
___________________
(R.SUBHASH REDDY, J)
December 30, 2010
MRR