G SRINIVAS GOUD Vs. DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An LMV Motor Vehicle of Toyota, 2004 Qualis Model, with registration No. AP 09 AT 8415, was owned by one Sri Madduri Mahesh Rao of Hyderabad. The petitioner purchased that vehicle and it was transferred in his name, on 09.09.2010. Since the petitioner is a resident of Nizamabad, the records pertaining to that vehicle appear to have been transferred to the office of the 1st respondent. Life tax was paid for the vehicle, at the time of registration itself. On 22.05.2012, the petitioner and his family members were returning from Tirupathi. The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Flying Squad, Nellore, the 2nd respondent stopped the vehicle at Nellore. Through a vehicle check report, dated 22.05.2012, he seized the vehicle, stating that the number punched on the chassis of the vehicle appears to have been tampered. He took the pencil print of the chassis number on the VCR.

(2.) The petitioner submitted an application before the 1st respondent for release of the vehicle, under Rule 448-B of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules'). Complaining that the application was not disposed of, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 19801 of 2012. It was represented on behalf of the respondents that the 1st respondent called for a report from the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Nellore, the 3rd respondent herein, and that as soon as it is received, necessary steps would be taken. The writ petition was disposed, of on 03.07.2012, directing that the 3rd respondent shall send the report within two weeks and that the 1st respondent shall pass orders on the application, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the report.

(3.) The 3rd respondent submitted a report, dated 24.08.2012, stating that the 2nd respondent has enquired from various sources and opined that the chassis number on the vehicle may have been repunched. Taking that into account, the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 20.10.2012, requiring the petitioner to explain as to why, the registration of the vehicle, be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted his explanation. He made a request to furnish the material relied upon by the 1st respondent. He denied the allegation made against him. The 1st respondent passed an order, dated 01.11.2012, cancelling the registration of the vehicle. On the same day, she passed another order, rejecting the application for release of the vehicle. The same are challenged in this writ petition.