interim custody of a vehicle pending inquiry underA.P.MOTOR VEHICLE TAXATION ACT = The petitioner is owner of the vehicle i.e. Innova 2.5G bearing registration No.UP-16-AJ-6016. The 1st respondent seized the said vehicle on 09-01-2013 by issuing a check report. It was alleged that the petitioner is liable to pay the tax on the vehicle as per the laws prevailing in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Another allegation is that certain equipment is fitted on the vehicle unauthorisedly. = The petitioner would be in a position to meet these allegations, only, if any, notice under the relevant provisions of law is issued. The continued detention of the vehicle would not sub-serve the purpose of the respondents. On the other hand, the vehicle would be exposed to theft of parts and damage on account of sun and rain. Therefore, we feel that the interest of the State can be protected by directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the respondents tentatively.

WP 985 / 2013

WPSR 5193 / 2013

PETITIONER RESPONDENT PHIMETRICS TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD., TRICHY   VS ASST. MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR, HYD & ANR PET.ADV. : SURENDER REDDY RESP.ADV. : GP FOR TRANSPORT SUBJECT: A.P.MOTOR VEHICLE TAXATION ACT DISTRICT:  HYDERABAD

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

AND

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.985 OF 2013

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)

            The petitioner is owner of the vehicle i.e. Innova 2.5G bearing registration No.UP-16-AJ-6016.  

The 1^st respondent seized the said vehicle on 09-01-2013 by issuing a check report.  It was alleged that 

the petitioner is liable to pay the tax on the vehicle as per the laws prevailing in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 

 Another allegation is that certain equipment is fitted on the vehicle unauthorisedly.  
The petitioner feels aggrieved by the seizure of the vehicle.

          Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Transport.

          The two allegations made against the petitioner are that the vehicle did not suffer life tax payable in the State of Andhra Pradesh and that certain equipment is fitted on the vehicle unauthorisedly.

          The petitioner would be in a position to meet these allegations, only, if any, notice under the relevant provisions of law is issued. 
The continued detention of the vehicle would not sub-serve the purpose of the respondents.  

On the other hand, the vehicle would be exposed to theft of parts and damage on account of sun and rain.  

Therefore, we feel that the interest of the State can be protected by directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the respondents tentatively.

          Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall release the vehicle in question to the petitioner on payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the respondents.  

Such release as well as the payment shall be subject to further steps, which the respondents may take in accordance with law. 

 The petitioner shall file an undertaking to the effect that it would produce the vehicle as and when required and that it shall not alienate the same till the controversy as to payment of tax is finalized. 

          The Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, in this writ petition shall stand closed.  No costs.    

                                                                     ______________________

L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

January 10, 2013.

                                                                   ______________________

                                                                     SANJAY KUMAR, J

PV