The writ petitioner herein seeks a writ of mandamus for declaring the seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle bearing No.AP 29TB 3129 vide vehicle check report No.730557 dated 17.12.2013 issued by the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, 3rd respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary and unjust.

Heard Sri Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Transport, who has accepted notice on behalf of the respondents herein.

It is agreed by both sides that the writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself.

Sri Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that for purpose of statistics and for purpose of impressing the higher officials of the department, the Motor Vehicles Inspectors are highhandedly, arbitrarily and indiscriminately checking the vehicles and seizing some of those vehicles without there being any justifiable reason or cause. Therefore, he would submit that the vehicle so seized shall be released immediately at any rate subject to the conditions specified by this Court in the judgment rendered in W.P.No.38326 of 2013 on 27.12.2013. It is also the case of the Sri Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, that all other learned single Judges of this Court are faithfully following the directives contained in the aforementioned judgment.

Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Transport has raised a fundamental objection. He would submit that the writ petitioner without first of all approaching the competent authority specified in Section 207 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot institute writ petition in this Court. He would point out that under sub-section (1) section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 any police officer or other person authorized in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or without the permit required by 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, seize and detain the vehicle, in the prescribed manner and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle. Learned Government Pleader for Transport would, therefore, specifically point out that without the petitioner, approaching and applying to the transport authority or any officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government with all the relevant documents for the release of such vehicle in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 207 cannot rush to this court and file this writ petition.

Learned Government Pleader for Transport would place reliance on two judgments of Division Bench of this Court rendered in “M.Venkateswara Rao v. Secretary, R.T.A., Warangal” (2000 (1) ALT 170) and G.Nagaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 2000 Andhra Pradesh 442).

It is true that in the judgment rendered in 2000 (1) ALT 170, the Division Bench of this Court indicated that the vehicle owner should first approach the concerned Transport authority for the release of the vehicle by filing an application under Section 207 (2) read with the Rules and this Court also directed that such application should be dealt with, with utmost expedition and if no orders are passed within three days, the aggrieved person can invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226.

It is also true that in the judgment reported in AIR 2000 Andhra Pradesh 442, the Division Bench has also set out that there was absolute propriety in conferring the power on the Secretary, R.T.A., who is the highest officer of the Transport Department in the District under sub-section (2) of Section 207.

The Division Bench then proceeded to observe as under:

“The approach of such higher officer could be expected to be more objective and unbiased. Thus, while we s