C.Prameela v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ranga ReddyDistrict

Heard Smt.N.Nagavani Prasuna, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned G.P. for Transport and, at their request, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. Aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in seizing the petitioner’s vehicle, vide vehicle check report No.0254180 dated

9.3.2010, the present writ petition is filed. While the petitioner would assert that an application had been made to the respondents to release the vehicle, the Learned G.P. for Transport would submit that the said application is not in accordance with Rule 448(b) of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules. Under Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under Section 207(1) the owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle may apply to the Transport authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government together with the relevant documents seeking release of the vehicle and such authority or officer may, after verification of such documents, by order release the vehicle subject to such conditions as the authority or officer may deem fit to impose. Rule 448 of the Motor Vehicle Rules prescribes the procedure and the fee required to be paid on the application made under Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Smt.N.Nagavani Prasuna, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that petitioner would make an application afresh, in accordance with Section 207(2) read with Rule 448, within two days. The 1st respondent shall, within three days of receipt of the application, pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s request for release of the seized vehicle subject to any reasonable conditions which he may deem fit to impose. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________ 29-3-2010 Note: Issue C.C. tomorrow B/o