Telangana High Court
WP/24824/2004 of K.Amul, Vs The Regional Transport Officer, on 30 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 24824 of 2004 Between: K.Amul, s/o Baban Rao, aged 29 years, Occ: Owner of Jeep
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION No. 24824 of 2004
Between:
K.Amul, s/o Baban Rao, aged 29 years, Occ: Owner of Jeep No.AP-01-T-6029, r/o Bela Village & Mandal, Adilabad District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Regional Transport Officer, Adilabad, Adilabad District.
2 The Motor Vehicles inspector, Adilabad (Hqrs.), Adilabad District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ ofMandamus declaring the seizure and detention of the petitioner's vehicle i.e., Maxi-cab LMV jeep bearing registration No.AP-01-T-6029 seized under vehicle checkreport in C.No.0963281 dated 10-12-2004 by the 2nd respondent as illegal,arbitrary, improper, unjust, unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justiceand consequently direct the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle i.e.,MAXI-Cab LMB Jeep bearing registration no.AP-01-T-6029 forthwith to the petitionerpending enquiry.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SURENDER REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT
The Court made the following:
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 i.e. Maxi-Cab LMV Jeep bearingRegistration No.AP-01-T-6029.
The 2[nd] respondent seized the petitioner’s vehicle under checkreport bearing No.0963281, dated 10.12.2004 for violation of certainirregularities and handed over it to the 1[st] respondent.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that thepetitioner is a poor person and that he made a representation, dated15.12.2004 to the 1st respondent requesting him to release thevehicle, but the 1[st] respondent refused to release the vehicle.Therefore, he prays to grant interim custody of the vehicle to thepetitioner. The counsel has further contended that if any violationsare made, the petitioner will be liable to pay the amount.
The learned Government Pleader for Transport has opposed theapplication filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner hasto approach the 1[st] respondent-Transport authority for grant of interimcustody of the vehicle and appropriate orders have to be passed bythe 1[st] respondent, but the petitioner, without approaching the 1[st]respondent has filed this writ petition.
As per the check report, dated 10.12.2004, the 2[nd] respondent seized the Jeep of the petitioner for violation ofcertain irregularities. Though it is asserted in the affidavit that thepetitioner made a representation, dated 15.12.2004, the 1[st] respondent has not taken any steps for grant of interim custody ofthe vehicle since the vehicle is being used for travelling purposes.Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the interim custody of thevehicle to the petitioner.
In the light of the above circumstances, the 1[st] respondent-Regional Transport Authority is directed to release thevehicle of the petitioner for interim custody on condition that thepetitioner deposits Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) on thefollowing terms and conditions.
1. that the petitioner shall not transfer the vehicle to any otherperson without the permission of the 1[st] respondent.person without the permission of the 1[st] respondent.
2. that the petitioner shall not change the engine or any part ofthe vehicle.the vehicle.
3. that the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and whenrequired by the authorities concerned.required by the authorities concerned.
4. that the petitioner shall participate in the enquiry that is goingto be conducted by the 1[st] respondent after receipt of showcause notice by filing his explanation.to be conducted by the 1[st] respondent after receipt of showcause notice by filing his explanation.
5. that the tax, if any, may be adjusted out of the amountdeposited by the petitioner.deposited by the petitioner.
The 1[st] respondent may take further steps for recovery of the tax fromthe petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above directions. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
______________
(K.C. BHANU, J.)
Dated: 30.12.2004
Note:
Issue Operative portion by
Wire at party’s costs
B/o.
Dsr
To:
1. The Regional Transport Officer,
Adilabad, Adilabad District
2. The Motor Vehicles Inspector,
Adilabad Head Quarters,
Adilabad District
3. Two CCs to the Government Pleader
for Transport, High Court Buildings,
Hyderabad (OUT).
4. Two CD copies.