Allowed

B.v.Narendra Chowdary v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Telangana HC27 Aug 2009WP/18026/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought directions for the release of a vehicle seized due to permit, tax, and licence irregularities. The High Court directed the respondents to release the vehicle upon deposit of an amount and furnishing an undertaking, disposing of the petition without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release the seized vehicle upon deposit of Rs.10,000/- and furnishing an undertaking to alter the vehicle's nature during the enquiry.

B.v.Narendra Chowdary Vs The Secretary, Regional… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 18026 of 2009

¶5

Between:

¶6

B.V. Narendra Chowdary

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and another.

¶10

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶11

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶12

WRIT PETITON No.18026 of 2009

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

It appears the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing Regn. No.AP/9Y-0036, and the vehicle was intercepted by the 2^nd respondentMotor Vehicle Inspector, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District, while plying on Kamareddy by-pass road, on

¶15

19-08-2009 at 5.30 a.m. and found the following irregularities:

¶16

1. No proof of permit.

¶17

2. R.C. not produced.

¶18

3. No proof of tax for quarter ending 30-09-2009.

¶19

4. Without Driving Licence proof.

¶20

5. Without F.C. proof.

¶21

Therefore, the vehicle was seized under Section 8 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Transport Act and under Section 207 of the M.V.Act and kept the vehicle at Kamareddy Bus Depot (APSRTC) under the custody of the 2^nd respondent.

¶22

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of petitioner’s best efforts and several representations, he could not get the vehicle released. Hence, he filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions.

¶23

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Transport, appearing for the respondents.

¶24

4. Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, this Court, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

¶25

The 1^st respondentSecretary, Regional Transport Authority, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, is directed to release the vehicle bearing Regn. No.AP/9Y-0036, kept with the 2^nd respondent-Motor Vehicles Inspector, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District, on condition of the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and furnishing an undertaking to the effect that he will not alter the nature of the vehicle and will not create any encumbrance during pendency of the enquiry.

¶26

5. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

_________________ 27^th August 2009

¶28

KVR

B.v.Narendra Chowdary v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.v.Narendra Chowdary v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alladi Srinivas Vs The District Collector

Rayana Chinna Rao Vs The Tahsildhar, Visakhapatnam Mandal

M.Ramesh Vs Sri Vijayender Reddy

Smt. L. Vijayalakshmi, Vs The Deputy Collector and Tahsildar

J.Ramu Vs The Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary

Mohammed Burhanuddin Vs Commissioneer of Police Hdyerabad