Muneer Travels, Rep. by its Prop Subhani v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the above
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the above directions. No order as to costs.
Judgment
Cause title
Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in insisting condition for release of the vehicle bearing to pay the tax and penalty as a No. NL02B 4356 seized on 10.09.2025 by the 3rd respondent by Challan No. No. AP204264250910072618 demanding tax and penalty of Rs. 4,81,000/- and also compounding fee of Rs. 10,000/- without issuing any check report or enquiry as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the r W ■ respondent to release the vehicle of the petitioner forthwith by accepting 2nd the tax as per GOMs No. 285 dated 15.09.1984 and pass. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated •h the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased fTiay be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to release the vehicle of the Petitioner’s vehicle bearing No. NL02B 4356 seized on 10.09.2025 by the 3rd respondent by issuing Challan No. AP204264250910072618 forthwith by accepting the tax as per GOMs No. 285 dated 15.09.1984 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B SIVARAMAKRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS The Court made the following Order: ; r ‘ APHC010487142025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 24863/2025 Between:
1.MUNEER TRAVELS. REP BY ITS PROP. SHAIK MUNEER, S/0. SHAIK MAHABOOB SUBHANI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, 0/0. DOOR NO. 0 AM ROAD, MOKOKCHUNG TOWN. NAGALAND NAGALAND STATE. 798601. AND ...PETITIONER
1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. TRANSPORT ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT A.P SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, THULLUR MANDAL, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT
2.THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT ANDHRA ANNAMAYYA ROYACHOTI. DISTRICT AUTHORITY. PRADESH STATE.
3.THE MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR, ROYACHOTI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ...RESPONDENT(S)
: Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.B SIVARAMAKRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS The Court made the following: 2 ♦ \
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Sri B. Siva Rama Krishnaiah learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Sk. Abdul Rasheed, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport.
Sri Sk. Abdul Rasheed, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport, has submitted the Written Instructions furnished Transport Officer, Rayachoti. Copy of it Petitioner and the same is taken on record. by the District is supplied to the Counsel for the
Sri B. Siva Rama Krishnaiah, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, has drawn the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.285, T, R & B (Tr-ll), dated 15.09.1984 (Ex.P.5). On facts, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit 4. Vehicle bearing No.NL 02B 4356 was seized by the Official Respondents 10.09.2025, while it was passing from Hyderabad to Rayachoti District. Annamayya that the
Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner further submits that the Vehicle in transit through the State of Andhra Pradesh with its destination Rayachoti. He would submit that the above Vehicle held an All India Tourist Permit, which was valid from 10.06.2025 up to 09.09.2025 (Ex.P.2). He would further submit that, out of sheer inadvertence, the Petitioner did the permit had expired. As on the date of seizure at 07:21 A M 10.09.2025, the above-mentioned Vehicle did not technically have India Tourist Permit, as it had expired approximately twenty four (24) hours prior to the time of seizure. not notice that a valid All
On the face of it, it appears to the Court that the alleged violation not deliberate but occurred due to inadvertence. It is also the opinion of this Court that the present case is covered by G.O Ms.No.285, T, R & B (Tr-ll) dated 15.09.1984 (Ex.P.5). 3
Having regard to the same, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the Writ Petitioner to comply with G.O.Ms.No.285, T, R & B (Tr-ll), dated 15.09.1984 (Ex.P.5), and also to pay the compounding fee as stated in the Challan dated
10.09.2025, issued at 07:21 A.M., (Ex.PI). There shall be a further direction that the District Transport Officer (Respondent No.2) shall be obligated to release the Vehicle bearing No. NL 02B 4356 forthwith upon compliance with the directions of this Court.
Operative part
Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the above directions. No order as to costs.
Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K J RAJA BABU assistANJJ^'^^'STRAR FFICER SECtlO To,
The Principal Secretary, Transport Roads and Buildings Department A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Thullur Mandal, Amaravathi, Guntur District
2. The District Transport Officer, Regional Transport Authority, Royachoti, Annamayya District Andhra Pradesh State.
3. The Motor Vehicles Inspector, Royachoti, Annamayya District Andhra Pradesh State
One CC to Sri B Sivaramakrishnaiah, Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CCS to GP for ROADS & BUILDINGS, High Court of Andhra f-' Pradesh [OUT]
6. Two CD Copies VNA 3 HIGH COURT DATED:16/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 24863 OF 2025 ^o- x: o 16SEP20» a ^ cm«ntsec«0n^7 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.