T.Ajay Babu v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ranga Reddy District East at Uppal, Ranga & Anr.

This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No.AP-29T- 6969 under Vehicle Check report No.2541757 dated 23.01.2008, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for declaration that non-consideration of his application dated 24.01.2008 and not releasing his vehicle, is illegal.

Heard Sri Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Asst. Govt. Pleader for Transport. A perusal of the vehicle check report dated 23.01.2008 shows that the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No.AP-29T-6969 (the Contract Carriage) was seized on 23.01.2008 at 6.50 A.M. at Nagole village, with the following incriminating points: (1) As per the statement (written) recorded and the fare tickets collected from the passengers traveling the vehicle at the time of check. It reveals that the passengers do not have any prior contract with the permit holder or any contract on behalf of the permit holder. In turn they do not belongs to the same party and no passenger exercise full control of the vehicle. Instead several passengers have separate contract for use of the vehicle and paid different fairs and boarding to different places in Hyderabad City different purposes. The transport vehicle used in such manner falls within the definition of “Stage Carriage” and not as a “Contract Carriage”. Hence, the vehicle is plying as a stage carriage in between Tanuku and Hyderabad. (2) Special Permit No.AP029/112/PROV/2008 expired on 20th January, 2008. The vehicle was seized after allowing the passengers disembarked at their destination point. The petitioner then moved the 1st respondent by an application dated 24.01.2008 for release of the vehicle. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far the said application was not considered and disposed of by the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the continued detention of the petitioner’s vehicle is resulting in deterioration its condition. He further submitted that if any liability is fastened on the petitioner in future, according to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963, he will work out his remedies and that the vehicle may be directed to be released pending determination of the petitioner’s liability, if any. The learned Asst. Govt. Pleader for Transport submitted that in view of seriousness of the allegations made against the petitioner, the vehicle was seized and detained. Having considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that interests of justice would be met if 1st respondent is directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

The petitioner shall file an undertaking before 1st respondent that he will not alienate, create any third party rights, or in any manner alter the nature of the vehicle;

The petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when the same is required for the purpose of disposal of the proceedings that may be initiated by 1st respondent for the alleged violations;