IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 4448 OF 202fi Between: Uppu Mahesh, S/o Venkata Rao, Hindu, Aged about 33 Spinning years, R/o 2 Lalacheruvu, D.No. Rajamahendravaram - 533106, East Godavari District. 3-409, Colony ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. Regional Transport Officer, Department of Motor Vehicles Central Jail Rqad, Bharath Nagar, Rajamahendravaram. 3. Sub Inspector of Police, Gokavaram Police Station, Gokavaram Godavari District. , East ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order may or direction more particularly m the nature of writ of Mandamus that declaring the action of the respondents No. 2 and 3 that in one pursuance of FIR No. 276/2024 of the 3rd respondent/police and that not allowing RTO services for transportation of lorry bearing No. AP37TB5899 Tata Motors 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. AP37TB5899 Tata Motors belongs to the petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to directing respondent that permit the petitioner the 2 vehicle for all RTO services for the transportation of the lorry bearing AP37TB5899 Tata Motors belongs to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. R K ACHARYULU No. Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.4448 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 respondent/police and that not allowing RTO NO.AP37TB5899 Tata Motors belongs to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently directing the 2'’'^ respondent that permit the petitioner vehicle for all RTO services for the transportation of the lorry bearing No. AP37TB5899 Tata Motors belongs to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders...” for transportation of lorry bearing services Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government 2. Pleader for Transport for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP37TB5899 (Tata Motors) 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 on 30.11.2024. The operative portion of the said communication is extracted hereunder: 3. “Kind attention: Your vehicle AP 37 TB 5899 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 submitted written instructions dated 22.02.2025 issued by the respondents. The relevant portion of the said instructions is extracted hereunder: “In this connection, this office has noted the objections in respect of the above mentioned vehicles and as per the request made out by the SHO, Gokavaram P.S. except the transfer/ re-registration of the vehicle other necessary transaction will be provided to the vehicle owner on production of his representation for services like renewal of Fitness Certificate/ Permit Taxation Services. 6. Learned Government Pleader for the respondents further submits that the respondents did not have any objections 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. 7. 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 TB 5899 and the said vehicle has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Act with the 3''‘ respondent herein. It further appears that the instructions dated 22.02.2025 has been issued pursuant to the report of respondent No.3 herein regarding the FIR registered against the petitioner vide crime No.276/2024 dated 02.10.2024. 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. 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 8. 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 compliant and FIR registered against the petitioner, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further, in accordance with law. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There 9. shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- K, SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANTiREGISTRAR SECTIOf^OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Regional Transport Officer, Department of Motor Vehicles Central Jail Rqad, Bharath Nagar, Rajamahendravaram. 3. The Sub Inspector of Police, Gokavaram Police Station, Gokavaram, East Godavari District. 4. One CC to Sri. R K Acharyulu Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Two CCs to GP for Transport, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED;24/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.4448 of 2025 X 1 3 MAR 2025 ^ . Curreni Section «o/. DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS