( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner of transport vehicles, which usually ply within the twin cities. The present writ petition is filed alleging that the respondents namely, the commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and deputy Commissioner of Police (North zone) are prohibiting entry of petitioner s vehicles bearing Nos. QAPN 4675, att 6461, APT 5184, APT 5508, AP 12 T 1824, AAT 9011, AP 10 U 7125, AP 10 U 7124, AP 12 T 331, AP 11 U 7027, ATR 563, aar 1719 and ADT 8289 and also levying penalties arbitrarily ranging from Rs. 100. 00 to Rs. 2000. 00. The petitioner prays for a declaration that the action of the respondents in prohibiting entry of vehicles on certain roads as well as levying penalties as alleged is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also gave various instances where the authorities levied penalty ranging from rs. 100/- to Rs. 2,000. 00.

( 2 ) SO as to dispose of the matter at the admission stage this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to file counter- affidavit. After filing the counter-affidavit the matter was heard and is being disposed of at the admission stage.

( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) all the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are denied. It is further stated that all the drivers of the petitioner s vehicles have committed various traffic offences punishable under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, that the police are not prohibiting plying of lorries but are only regulating the movement of traffic during school and office hours. He has also annexed two separate statements showing the list of lorries involved in traffic violations in the years 2001 and 2002. The lists contain particulars of the vehicles allegedly owned by the petitioner. The same would show that the petitioner s lorries were penalized for violating traffic rules not on one count but on more counts than one.

( 4 ) SRI N. Subba Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents are adopting an arbitrary method in regulating the lorries, that no definite guidelines or instructions are issued and therefore the traffic regulations lack transparency and that even for collection of fines / compounding fees under the Motor vehicles Act and Rules arbitrary method is being adopted. The learned Assistant government Pleader produced various notifications and Government Orders in support of his contention that the traffic police are strictly following these notifications. A brief reference to these notifications is necessary in order to appreciate the contentions advanced by both the counsel.

( 5 ) THE first respondent issued a notice bearing No. Tr. T4/242/92 dt. 27-4-1992 in exercise of powers conferred under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Hyderabad City Police Act imposing restrictions on the movement of lorries purportedly to maintain smooth flow of traffic and to prevent danger, obstruction and inconvenience to the public. The inter- district and inter-State lorries in twin cities are permitted to ply between 9. 00 p. m. to 8. 00 a. m on specified routes and can leave the city only from 12. 00 noon to 3. 00 p. m. In paragraph II of the said notification certain restrictions were imposed on local lorries prohibiting them to ply between 8. 30 a. m. to 11. 00 a. m. and 4. 00 p. m. to 6. 30 p. m. However, it was clarified that the said restrictions are not applicable to the light motor vehicles i. e. , transport vehicles, omni bus, motor car, tractor or road roller having unladden weight not exceeding 6000 Kgs. Further, the entry of loaded, empty and parking of lorries is prohibited from 10 p. m. to 8 a. m. in the specified colonies and on specified roads of the twin cities.

( 6 ) THE said notification which came into force with effect from 28-4-1992 was in force for a period of six months. The same was extended from time to time till a new not