This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Memo No.418/A3/2012, dated 28-06-2012, issued by respondent No.1. I have heard Mr.B. Siva Rama Krishnaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Transport appearing for the respondents. The petitioner is a holder of State Wide Contract Carriage Permit. While his bus bearing No. AP/01X – 2599 was plying, it was intercepted and checked by respondent No.2 on 20-06-2012. The vehicle was seized under Vehicle Check Report No.109065 on the following allegations:

1. Violating permit conditions

2. Without RC

3. Without Permit

4. Passengers list not maintained.

The petitioner has filed an application under Rule 448-B of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short ‘the Rules’) before respondent No.1 on 24-06-2012. Pending the said application, the petitioner filed WP.No.19551 of 2012 for release of the seized vehicle. During the course of hearing of the said Writ Petition, the learned Government Pleader for Transport, on instructions, stated before the Court that respondent No.1 has passed an order rejecting the petitioner’s application. Therefore, the said Writ Petition was dismissed by the Court with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy against the order of respondent No.1. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and one Habeeb Khan, driver of the vehicle, for prosecution in the Court of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nirmal, Adilabad District, on 25-06-2012; that the same is pending before the said Court and that the petitioner’s application was disposed of accordingly.

In my opinion, the order passed by respondent No.1 is not only cryptic but also ambiguous. Respondent No.1 seems to have proceeded on the premise that once the Criminal Case is registered, he need not release the vehicle. Respondent No.1 has not even stated that the petitioner’s application is rejected.

Under Section 207 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), the Motor Vehicle is liable for being seized and detained, if the Officer competent to seize has the reason to believe that the vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 of the Act or without the permit required under sub-section 1 of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used. Under sub-Section (2) thereof, on the application filed by the owner or the person incharge of the Motor Vehicle, the competent authority may release the Vehicle after verification of such documents subject to the conditions as the authority or the Officer may deem fit to impose.

Clause (iv) of Rule 448-A of the Rules inter alia provides that where prosecution of the owner or driver or both is necessary, charge sheets against them shall be filed before the concerned Magistrate within three days from the date of seizure and the Motor Vehicle shall be released by the Officer, who detained it, after the prosecution is completed under intimation to Secretaries of Regional Transport Authorities mentioned in Clause (ii) thereof.

Under Rule 448-B of the Rules, application for release of a vehicle seized and detained under sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the Act shall be made in the prescribed form and the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, of the Region shall entertain the application for release of vehicles seized and detained by subordinate officers.

On a conjoint reading of these provisions, it is evident that while a motor vehicle is liable for being seized and detained in contravention of the provisions of the Act as enumerated in Section 207 (1) of the Act, the owner of such vehicle is entitled to seek release of the seized vehicle subject to such terms and conditions as the competent a