ORDER:

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondents police in keeping the vehicle i.e., two wheeler Honda Activa bearing No.AP 31 BT 0021 in their custody without registration of any crime, and declare the same as illegal and direct the respondents 4 and 5 to release the said vehicle.

It is the case of the petitioner that on 03-07-2019 she has taken away the two wheeler i.e., Honda Activa bearing No. AP 31 BT 0021 from one Sai Sruthi Mullapudi at about 2.00 p.m. Later, around 4.30 p.m., she parked the said vehicle behind R.T.C. Complex, opposite to VMRDA Central Park at Visakhapatnam. After completion of work, she returned to the same place and found the vehicle is missing. On enquiry, she came to know that II Town Traffic Police took away the vehicle, even though it was under lock and key under the petitioner. Later, the petitioner came to know that a drunk and drive case was registered against some other person. In fact, the petitioner parked the vehicle at parking place. Therefore, the alleged seizure is illegal and requested to issue a direction to the respondents as stated above.

During hearing, the learned counsel for petitioner Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup specifically stated that the said vehicle is parked at parking place, and the police cannot seize the vehicle. Even the traffic police also cannot seize the vehicle from parking place. Therefore, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 09-07-2019 to the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam and the Station House Officer, II Town Traffic Police Station, Daba gardens, Visakhapatnam calling upon them to release the said vehicle while challenging the illegal seizure of the vehicle and copies of the notice and acknowledge merit are also placed on record before this Court to substantiate his contention. Hence, the very seizure itself is illegal and he relies upon the order passed by the High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad in W.P.No.2361/2019 dated 07-04-2019.

Whereas the learned Government Pleader for Home contended that rd the vehicle was seized by the 3 respondent while conducting root watch. In drunk and drive case some unknown person left the vehicle and fled away from the scene of offence, thereby the vehicle was taken in possession by the Station House Officer, II Town Traffic Police Station, Daba gardens, Visakhapatnam and they did not seize the vehicle. At the same time, the petitioner approached the police. The police issued notice to the owner of the vehicle namely Sri Sai Sruthi Mullapudi requesting her to produce the relevant documents relating to the vehicle and also instructed to produce the person who caught in drunk and drive case. In turn, husband of the vehicle owner stated that he will ensure the details of rider and the documents relating to the vehicle. But, till date he did not produce any details and documents pertaining to the vehicle and requested to pass appropriate orders.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner took the vehicle from one Sai Sruthi Mallapudi and the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle. The petitioner has not involved in the alleged offence of drunk and drive and she filed this petition. The petitioner stated that she is working under the said Sai Sruthi Mallapudi. Even if the vehicle was taken into the custody by the police when it was parked, in the absence of any material, it is difficult to accept the contentions of this petitioner that the possession of the vehicle was taken when it was parked by the petitioner at parking place. If, for any reason the vehicle is seized or taken into custody either in the offence of drunk and drive or the person left the vehicle who involved in the offence of drunk and drive, the owner is entitled to file the petition for release of the said vehicle. The petitioner is neither the owner nor the person who allegedly involved in the said offence of drunk and drive.

The petitioner’s content