Sri Omer Khan v. Authority, Khairatabad,Hyderabad

This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle bearing No.AP/9Y- 3499 under check report No.1471619, dated 27-08-2008 by respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary. While the petitioner’s above mentioned vehicle was being plied on the Hyderabad-Bombay route, the same was intercepted at Afzalgunj with 16 passengers and the vehicle was allegedly found carrying general merchandise goods other than the passengers’ luggage. The vehicle was not allowed to proceed further on the ground that it would be a great threat to the passengers travelling in the vehicle, if it is permitted to ply and accordingly, the vehicle was seized and kept in the premises of S/RTA, Hyderabad. The petitioner moved an application before respondent No.1 for release of the vehicle. When the writ petition came up for admission and hearing on 05-09-2008, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport placed before me a copy of the order passed by respondent No.1 purportedly on 02-09-2008, whereby the petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle was rejected on the ground that the Assistant Secretary, Hyderabad Central Zone issued orders launching prosecution against the driver of the vehicle and that the orders for release of the vehicle will be issued after the result of the prosecution is known.

In my considered view, the vehicle of the petitioner cannot be kept in detention till such time as the prosecution, which has not so far been launched even according to the instructions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport reported today, is completed. Ordinarily, prosecution of a criminal case takes considerable time and if the vehicle is kept in detention till then, the same is prone to deterioration apart from causing serious harm to the interests of the petitioner. If the petitioner has committed violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 and the Rules made under the said two Acts, the respondents shall be free to proceed against the petitioner and take appropriate action to implement the orders passed in such proceedings. Therefore, I find no justification in the respondents in continuing with the detention of the vehicle, without its release to the petitioner, on the purported ground of initiation of prosecution.

The respondents are directed to forthwith release the vehicle to the petitioner subject to the following conditions. 1) Respondent No.1 shall release the vehicle bearing registration No.AP/9Y-3499 to the petitioner subject to his filing an undertaking that he will not alienate or in any manner transfer the ownership of the vehicle, pending determination of his liability. 2) As and when the liability is determined by respondent No.1, he is at liberty to enforce the same subject to the remedies available to the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.25058 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 6th September, 2008 Note: Issue C.C today