B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS batch of writ petitions can be disposed of by a common order, as the question that arises for consideration is one and the same. I have elaborately heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Transport at the admission stage. At their request the matter is taken up for final disposal.

( 2 ) RULE Nisi.

( 3 ) THE petitioners assail the legality and propriety of the action of the respondents in seizing the vehicles on the basis of the check report. To appreciate the controversy, the facts in one writ petition may be noticed.

( 4 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 25348 of 1999 claims to be the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA. 01/b-1111. It is stated that the vehicle is covered by an All india Tourist permit granted by the State transport Authority, Bangalore. The permit is valid upto 12-10-2003. The vehicle is also authorized to operate in the State of Andhra pradesh. According to the petitioner; the vehicle is covered by valid tax paid to the home State upto 31-12-1999. It is also covered by valid tax to the State of A. P. upto 31-12-1999. It is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle was engaged by a tourist party of Bangalore to visit hyderabad. The second respondent herein checked the vehicle at about 8-30 a. m. on 6-12-1999 at the outskirts of Hyderabad and prepared the check report No. 452041 dated 7-12-1999 in which it is alleged that the vehicle was proceeding from Bangalore to hyderabad with 35 passengers. It was carrying individual passengers from bangalore to Hyderabad. All of them are individual passengers. The vehicle did not make circular trip and that the driving licence is not valid since the driver does not know national language without minimum educational qualification and that permit conditions 9b-1 to 12 are violated. According to the second respondent the liability of tax might be rs. 75,500/ -. In the check report, it is further stated that there was commercial luggage in the vehicle. On those allegations, the second respondent herein seized the vehicle of the petitioner in purported exercise of power under Sec. 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Sec. 8 of the A. P. Motor Vehicle taxation Act.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the seizure of the vehicle, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner accordingly prays for a writ of Mandamus declaring the seizure and continued detention of the petitioner s vehicle seized under vehicle check report dated 7-12-1999 as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also prays for a consequential direction directing the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioner forthwith.

( 6 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the vehicle was checked under check report No. 452041 and found coming from Bangalore with 35 passengers and the following irregularities were noticed among other things: (1) Carrying individual passengers picked-up at different places in bangalore by paying different fares and coming to Hyderabad. (2) The Driving licence was not produced at the time of check. (3) Carrying commercial luggage for commercial purpose for hire; (4) The driver was not having necessary qualification to drive All india Tourist Vehicle. (5) At the time of check there were 35 passengers whereas the passenger list contained 28 names; (6) Permit conditions as prescribed for tourist vehicles were not complied.

( 7 ) IT is categorically stated that the said vehicle was seized under Sec. 207 (1) of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Sec. 8 of the a. P. M. V. Taxation Act, 1963 and prima facie found that the tax liability would be at rs. 75,500/ -. It is also alleged that the owner has misused the permit and violated the conditions and plied the vehicle as express stage carriage. It is submitted that the list of passengers, the statements taken by the checking officer indicates that the passengers were traveling for various purposes like Business, Visit to relations, official d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document