APHC010084502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 4451/2025 Between: Kurella Venkateswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. R K ACHARYULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.4451 OF 2025 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 and 3 that in pursuance of FIR No.276/2024 of the 3rd respondent/police and that not allowing RTO services for transportation of lorry bearing No.AP37W0005 Ashok Leyland belongs to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently directing the 2nd respondent that permit the petitioner vehicle for all RTO services for the transportation of the lorry bearing No. AP37W0005 Ashok Leyland belongs to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders...” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Transport for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP37W0005 (Ashok Leyland) and has been eking out his livelihood out of the transport services rendering through his lorry. While things stood thus, pursuant to the complaint received from a third party vide crime No.276/2024 dated 02.10.2024, respondent No.2 herein issued a communication to the petitioner. The operative portion of the said communication is extracted hereunder: “Kind attention: Your vehicle AP 37 W 00085 has been marked as NOT TO BE TRANSACTED (RTO related services are not allowed) due to police case. Please Contact your Registering Authority.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner herein time and again orally requested the respondents that he is no way concerned with the crime and much less holding of vehicle of the petitioner and issuance of such correspondence by observing such allegations as alleged by the respondents is contrary to law and liable to be suspended. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the respondents did not have any objection for operation/ plying of the vehicle of the petitioner except requesting for cooperation of the petitioner in investigation as requested by the respondent No.3 herein. He further submits that the said vehicle was neither seized nor restrained from performing its operations since there are no violations under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents, it appears that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the vehicle bearing No. AP 37 W 0005 and the said vehicle has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Act with the 3rd respondent herein. It is further observed that as contended by the learned Government Pleader that the subject vehicle is neither seized nor restrained from its operations since there are no violations under the provisions of the Act. Hence, the grievance of the petitioner is not contrary to the facts and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no intention either to seize the vehicle or to restrain the vehicle of the petitioner for plying the same. 7. In view of the clear and categorical submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of, directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject vehicle of the petitioner. In any event if the respondents intend to initiate any action pursuant to the complaint and FIR registered against the petitioner, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further, in accordance with law. 8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 24.02.2025 BSP 233 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.4451 of 2025 24.02.2025 BSP