Smt. J.C.Uma Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3654 AP

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

            WRIT PETITION No.20694 of 2021

ORDER:

The petitioner is the owner of passenger vehicle

bearing No.AP-02-TH-4217, which is being operated as stage

carriage under the permit available to the petitioner. This

vehicle was stopped on 15.07.2021 and seized by the 6th

respondent on the ground that the vehicle was not plying as per

the route permit given to the petitioner. Apart from seizing the

vehicle, the petitioner was also sought to be charged with the

offence under Sections 66(1)/192/86(5) and Section 192-A of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner had immediately sought release of

the vehicle by payment of the amounts claimed under the

vehicle check report apart from an offer to pay compounding fee

and the regular tax for the quarter ending 30.09.2021. As the

said vehicle is not being released, the petitioner has now

approached this Court.

3. Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned counsel for the

petitioner relies upon the orders of this Court dated 21.12.2019

in W.P.No.18650 of 2019 and orders this Court dated

01.05.2020 in W.P.No.411 of 2020 and the Judgment of a

Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

Saleem Tours and Travals vs Joint Transport

Commissioner and Secretary, R.T.A., Hyderabad and

another1 to contend that any vehicle which is seized would

have to be released upon an application being made for such

release, upon payment of the tax demanded and the

compounding fee/penalty levied against the said vehicle.

4. The learned Government Pleader for Transport, on

instructions, would submit that the petitioner has been violating

the permit conditions on daily basis and in view of the said

violation the vehicle of the petitioner is not being released. He

would further submit that steps are being taken to prosecute

the petitioner under Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988, and as such, the vehicle cannot be released at this stage.

5. In view of the Judgment of this Court cited above, it

is a well settled principle of law that any vehicle seized under

the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, requires to be

released upon an application being made by the owner of the

vehicle subject to the payment of tax and other penalties that

may have been levied on the vehicle under the vehicle check

report pursuant to which the vehicle has been seized.

6. In the present case, the vehicle has been seized on

15.07.2021 and a letter of request for release was made on

19.07.2021. In such circumstances, the vehicle of the petitioner

AIR 2000 AP 497: (2000) 4 ALD 501 (DB)

requires to be released as more than three months have lapsed

from the date of such request being made.

7. As far as the question of prosecution of the

petitioner is concerned, the same is not relevant for the purpose

of release of the vehicle. However, keeping in mind such an

eventuality, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to

the 4th respondent to release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing

No.AP-02-TH-4217, upon the petitioner paying the amounts set

out in her request letter dated 19.07.2021. This release shall be

subject to the further condition that the petitioner shall not

alienate the vehicle pending the enquiry and shall produce the

vehicle as and when necessary in the course of further enquiry,

if any, in this matter or in the event of the vehicle being required

for any investigation again that may be initiated. There shall be

no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

shall stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

21.09.2021 SDP

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.20694 of 2021

21-09-2021

SDP