IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 39120 of 2014 BETWEEN M.Sridhar Reddy AND ... PETITIONER The Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and others ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner’s vehicle bearing No.AP 26 TC 9480 was seized on 13.12.2014 as it was found to be plying as contract carriage between Nellore and Hyderabad and hence, a tax from the Telangana State was demanded and the vehicle was seized. Petitioner states in paragraph 7 of the affidavit that he has already filed appropriate application under Section 207(2) r/w 448-B of the Motor Vehicles Act before respondent No.1 on 15.12.2014 seeking release of the vehicle by enclosing all the necessary documents in support of his request. However, alleging that no orders are passed on the said application for release and on the contrary a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner dated 16.12.2014 requiring the petitioner to pay the tax demanded along with the compounding fee. Petitioner states that the enquiry is required to be conducted as he is disputing the liability. However, the release of the vehicle is required to be considered in terms of decision of this Court in M/s. Saleem Tours and Travels vs. Transport Commissioner
[1]
and RTA, Hyderabad .
3. Learned Government Pleader submits that petitioner has an option to pay compounding fee as the matter can be disposed of as it is.
4. However, the option for compounding is left for the petitioner to accept or not to accept and if the petitioner does not accept the said offer, the enquiry is required to be conduced and appropriate order is required to be passed. However pending consideration in such enquiry, the vehicle need not be detained by respondent No.1 and as such in my view as per the law laid down the application for release is required to be considered.
In the circumstances, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the said application for release of vehicle filed by the petitioner on its own merits and pass appropriate orders expeditiously within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order regarding release of the vehicle subject to and pending appropriate enquiry to be conducted. Respondent No.1 is at liberty to impose appropriate conditions pending enquiry.
With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 19, 2014 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 22.12.2014. (B/o) LMV
[1] AIR 2000 AP 497