Koppineedi Radha Krishna v. The State Of Telangana And 3 Others

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.4945 of 2020 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondents in detaining the Activa 3G W Electric a Startk Start CBS BSIII Motor cycle 2016 model bearing registration No.TS 08 FA 7431 of the petitioner/driver and to declare the same as illegal, null, void and arbitrary.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents. 3.

The case of the petitioner is that he is the driver of the vehicle in question, and that on 24.01.2020, at 23.05 hours, the vehicle was driven by the petitioner and when he reached at Rythu Bazar, Kukatpally of Kukatpally Traffic Police jurisdiction, the 4th respondent and other constables who were deployed there to check vehicles and to determine whether the driver of that vehicle was in inebriated condition or not, stopped and subjected him to breath analyzer test and alleged that he is in an inebriated state and seized his vehicle, and that the said vehicle is presently lying at Kukatpally Traffic Police jurisdiction in the open space and he was also issued with e-challan mentioning violations under Sections 185 (a) and 130/177, 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the M.V. Act'), which are not applicable to drunk and drive cases. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent has no jurisdiction to detain his vehicle. 4.

Learned Assistant Government for Home, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is the driver of the vehicle, and when he reached Rythu Bazar, Kukatpally of Kukatpally Traffic Police jurisdiction, the respondent police stopped and subjected the driver to breath analyzer test and found 45 alcohol reading and since the said driver of the vehicle was not in a position to drive the vehicle and as he did not produce the relevant documents, the police authorities have taken safe custody of the vehicle temporarily and placed the vehicle at the 4th respondent police station by exercising powers under Section 207 of the M.V. Act.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that from the documents annexed to the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle as per the certificate of registration issued by the Transport Department of Telangana and the driver was driving the vehicle on the said date. He would further submit that if the petitioner/driver and the owner of the vehicle in question along with their proof of identity and relevant documents of the vehicle appear before the concerned police authorities with whom the vehicle is in safe custody and on paying the prescribed fine, the vehicle would be released to the owner of the vehicle.

5.

It is seen from the record that the petitioner herein, who is the driver of the vehicle, has approached this Court, but the owner of the vehicle has not approached this Court. 6.

Having regard to the above said submissions and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner/driver is directed to appear before the 4th respondent authority along with the owner of the vehicle with proof of their identity and relevant documents of the vehicle in question. Upon the petitioner/driver and the owner of the vehicle approaching the 4th respondent or other official, who has the safe custody of the vehicle in question and making an application for release of the vehicle together with relevant documents, the said authority shall consider the same and release the vehicle to the owner forthwith by collecting fine as prescribed under the M.V. Act for non-production of documents, other violations and also if such vehicle is not involved in any other case.

7.

Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR Date: 12.03.2020 MRKR