'r ,

:'EffiY .
th
1. I submit that I am the 3 rd Petitioner herein as well as one of e

Partners of the 1st Petitioner and as such well acquainted with the facts of the
st
case. The 2nd Petitioner is my husband and the other Partner of the 1

Petitioner herein. I am filing this Affidavit on behalf of Petitioners 1 and 2

also as I am authorized to do so .

2. I submit that the above Writ Petition is filed challenging the

action of the Respondent in issuing Proceedings No.659/B 1/2019 dated

st
28.08.2019, cancelling the authroisation granted to the 1 Petitioner to issue

temporary registration numbe~, under Rule 84 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor

Vehicles Rules, 1989, without issuing any prior notice or affording an

adequate opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners, without considering the

letters dated 06.08.2019 and 17.08.2019 submitted by the 1st Petitioner or

giving any reference thereto in the proceedings dat~d 28.08.2019, and

without considering the order dated 21.08.2019 passed by this Hon' ble

Court in I.A.No.l of 2019 in W.P.No.11709 of 2019, as wholly without

jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable, violative of the

, C

principles o{ the natural justice, contrary to Central Motor Vehicles Rules,

1989, contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and

contrary to law, and to consequently set aside the aforesaid proceedings

dated 28.08.2019, in view of the fact~ and circumstances set out hereunder.

3. I submit that the 1st Petitioner is a registered Partnership Finn

bearing No.1489 of 2013 . A-copy of the Acknowledgement of Registration

r. {i)oJiwi_ rpT
znd
pg.corrs: DEPONENT
ATIESTOR
 ~ -
nd
dated 08.05.2013 is filed herewith ~ s P-1. Initially, the 2 Petitioner
st
and his father, Dr. Kodela Siva Prasada Rao, were the Partners of the I
st
Petitioner. In the year 2015, Dr. Kodela Siva Prasada Rao retired from the I

Petitioner as Partner and the 1st Petitioner was reconstituted and I was

inducted as a Partner. The object of the I st Petitioner is to carry on the

business of trading and selling two wheeler automobiles, four wheeler

automobiles, spare parts, accessories, etc. A copy of the Partnership Deed is

filed herewith marked as P-2 .

4. I submit that the 1st Petitioner is the authorized dealer of Mis .

Hero Moto Corp Limited in Guntur for sale and service of two wheeler

automobiles and spare parts. Letter of Intent was issued by Hero Moto Corp
-
Limited in that regard in the year 2013 and the 1st Petitioner commenced

commercial operations in December, 2014. The 1st Petitioner has complied

with a11 the requirements prescribed by the Respondent to carry on the said

dealership business at Guntur. Prior to the impugned action, no complaint

st
has ever been raised against the 1 Petitioner by the Respondent, Hero Moto

Corp Ltd., or any customer, in relation to its business. Taking into account
st
the performance of the 1 Petitioner, Hero Moto Corp Ltd., approved and
st
authorized the 1 Petitioner to have 6 sub-dealers in Guntur D istrict. Th
. e

details of the authorized sub-dealers of the I st Petitioner are as follows :

1) Syamala Automobiles at Cherukupalli

2) Sai Divya Motors at Ponnur, and

3) Venkata Ananda Service Centre at Repa!Ie

3 rd pg.corrs:
AITESTOR
K· ~ plii.ip
DEPONENT (J
 : 41£)
· at Guntur
4) Yerramsetty Auto Services

5) Satya Automotives at K.arampudi

6) Sasi Motors at Tullur'

• d the 1st Petitioner to open

5. I submit that the Respondent penmt_te
A Port<\l that facilitates sale
an account in order to log into and access the RT
. Th er name assigned to the
and registrations of two wheeler automob11es. G e us

account of the l st Petitioner is AP67413286. Further, the Transport

Department issued Trade Certificate to the 1st Petitioner under Rule 35 of the

Central Motor Vehicles Rule;, 1989, (CMV Rules) to carry on trade in

respect of motorcycles. Copy of the said Certificate is filed herewith marked

~ - Authorisation has also been given by the Registering Authority to the

st
1 Petitioner vide proceedings in AUTH/6643 dated 31:10.2014 under Rule

84 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (APMV Rules). The

said authorization has been renewed continuously. A copy of the renewal

proceedings in DEALER/00029/2019/AP007, dated 28.06.2019 is filed

herewith marked as P-4.

6. I submit that in order to. facilitate· sale of any two wl1ee er

1
st
automobile, the 1 Petitioner has to upload and register the details of the

automobile as well as the purchaser 011 the RTA Portal, insure the said

l v-~t \J.
vehicle, and pay life / road tax thereon in order to generate -; 1
•y
- __ -- - -- -- - -- __ emporary
.

,, c J-~gistration number. As per Rule 42 of the CMV Rules the 1s1 p ..

0 "' ~ / , ~ ' . etitioner
should not deliver any motor vehicle to a purchaser without a temporary
1

4th pg.corrs: K-'Padiu.o. (j}4a_

ATTESTOR DEPONENTV
'
I

·· 5 , ~
··, ~

-
permanent registration. Authorised Sub Dealers can also register themselves

with the Transport Department and create a separate user account in order to

directly facilitate the sale of vehicles without reference to:, the principal

dealer. Without a separate use~ account, a Sub Dealer facilitates sale of

st
vehicles through the user account of the principal dealer. The 1 Petitioner

and its sub dealers have already applied to the Transport Department for

issuance of separate user names to all the sub dealers in order to enable them

to individually log into and access the RTA Portal. The Transport

Department has issued separate user name to Yerramsetty Auto Services,

while the applications submitted in respect of the other syb dealers are still

pending and no action has been taken thereon.

7. I submit that on 02.08.2019, the Respondent along with his staff

visited the showroom of the 1st Petitioner at Guntur and informed the staff of

the 1st Petitioner that they would be conducting a physical inspection of the

same. Immediately upon visiting the showroom of the 1st PetitiQner, the

Respondent and his staff high-handedly blocked the user account of the 1st

Petitioner restraining it from logg~g into and accessing the RTA Portal. The

Respondent and his staff did not issue any prior notice before blocking the

said user account. Further, no reason was assigned by the Respo~dent and

his staff on 02.08 .2019 for blocking the said account. The inspection itself
•
was conducted without any notice and in the absence of Petitioners 2 and 3.

The said inspection took place from 4.00 p.m. to 7 p.m. on 02.08.2019.

5th pg.corrs.•
ATIESTOR
K- 9cukt r;Jo/
DEPONENT
 --- ::,111
·-- - - -

.. r✓-1al
,,\a" \V
8. I submit that the Respondent
issued notice 111
'
R.No.659/Bl/2019 dated 03 .08.2019 stating that in the physical inspection
t,)t:>~
conducted of the l 51 Petitioner showroom, it was found that there is a

variation of 88 vehicles as per the Stock / OMS Reports and the physically
--. ·- -- - - --- -------·-- - ..----· ...
available stocks, that it is therefore assumed that 88 ·vehicles have been
- ·----
delivered by the 1si Petitione~ without obtaining temporary registration in
51
violation of Rule 42 of the CMV Rules, that 4 sub dealer outlets of the 1
"
Petitioner at Repalle, Cherukupalle, Ponnuru and Karempudi were also
•
physically inspected, that the Managers at the said places confirmed that

certain vehicles have been delivered without obtaining temporary

registrations, and that as the 1si Petitioner delivered vehicles without

obtaining temporary registrations, it is called upon to submit an explanation

with stock position and account details for the financial years 2016 to 2019
..
and from 01.04.2019 to 02.08.2019 withi~ 7 days. Copy of the said notice is

filed herewith marked as P-5. As already stated, physical inspection of the

st
1 Petitioner' s showroom was conducted without any notice and in the

absence of Petitioners 2 and 3. The outlets of the sub dealers of the pt

•
Petitioner were also conducted without any notice and the 1st Petitioner did

not have an opp01tunity to verify the correct stock particulars. On enquiry,

the l st Petitioner found that physical inspection of its sub dealer outlets was

conducted in a haphazard "manner and in the abs~nce of Managers.

"
1
Furthennore, by illegally blocking the user account of the 1' Petitioner, the

1
Respondent prevented the l • Petitioner to log into and access the RTA

6 th pg.cores:
K·P
cuko. (j)T
DEPONENT
ATfESTOR ~
- .

:: 7 :: ~
,.,,._
st
I_>ortal. As a result, the I Petitioner could not verify many details relating to

the vehicles sold by it. In addition, the I st Petitioner was prevented from

uploading purchaser information, paying life I road stock, obtaining

temporary registration numbers and carrying on its business of trading

automobiles.

9. I submit that in response to the said notice, the 1st Petitioner

k,..K•
submitted explanation dated 06.08.2019 duly enclosing the sale and stock C. ::>l P\
. to' 's It ,1 µ
particulars from 2016 till 02.08.2019. A copy of the said explanation is filed
.
herewith marked as P-6. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent issued another

notice dated 10.08.2019 by email stating that on verification of the details

1 f' .
from the server data base. It was found that the 1st Petitioner sold 211 ;J ,f / - •

vehicles during the finan~ial year 2018-2019 and 1025 vehicles during the 1 ...... 7· ' : ,,,
- ·- ---- -· ··-·--
period 01.04.2019 to 02.08.2019 without obt?ining temporary registration

numbers in violation of Rule 42 of the CMV Rules. By the said notice, the

Respondent called upon the 1st Petitioner to submit its explanation within 3

days. A copy of the said notice is filed herewith marked as P-7. It may be

noted here that the contents of the said notice and the number of vehicles

mentioned therein which have been allegedly delivered without issuance of

temporary registration numbers are false and incorrect. However, on

10.08.2019 itself, th~ Respondent and his staff visited the showroom of the
0

15t Petitioner and high handedly seized the premises by placing the same

under lock and key. Photographs evidencing the same are filed herewith

th
7 pg.corrs:
ATTESTOR K-'iJok& ~ a _
DEPONENT
 : 8 : ~J;)
. k d . \) u
Q
\t mnv bl! noted hcrl! lhlll hull
.. lI1~ ln11h\\11~
t) I
. ' ,
co\\ect1Vc\y \l\Ul' ' I! us -o. J

seized by the Respondent is used for rcsidcnli11I purpo!ll!, On m:~oulll ol' 111~,

said seizure, the 2"'1Petitioner nnd \ could not 1I::il.l lhnl portion of tl w h11ildi111Ji

which is earmurkcd fol' resitl~ntinl use. No l\lll.ice whnl!:lrn.:vur w11s iHs11ud hy

the Respondent before sci·i ins 1he snit\ prcmisus. Thu Ruspo11dt.:11I 111 :-io did

not issue u.ny order of scfrlUrc furnh,hing rcn~o11s th1.mil'or 111\ll ulso i11di et11i11g

the provision of \aw under which sueh 11 \uw:ih uotion wus u11d url11kon . All

the records pertaining, tu lhc business ol'thl.l 1~1 Pulilil>nl..l r wun.i 101.;utod ill tho

said showroom which wus pll\c1.:d \.11\tkr loek 11ml kuy. A M u ru:mll, llil..l I ~1

Petitioner could not correctly vcril'y u\l or the rcci.1rds und submit u doluil od
explanation to the Respondent giving ull lhl.l corn,:cl :mlu 1111d 111.nek
~ ...
pa1ticu\ars.

10. 1 submit that notwith:,tunc.lin g lhc sum!.!, 1111.: 1"1 PcLili11111.: r with

great difficulty vcrifil.!d the sale und stock pu1ticuluni 1111c.l Hlll>11i lll1Jd
t..· • "'' . ,,,. p , '
explanation dated 17 .08 .2019 lo llw Reupo11du11l Hluli111:1, Lhul uruu11d 575
..._, __ - -- I, ' "
,-.I
i:
,.r ,,
H
1
vehicles may have been ddivcrcd by lhl.l 1~ l'utiliu11ur 1111c.l ilH Bllb dculcrn

without obtaining temporary rcgiHlrulion 11umbuni und lhal ir thu Rl.lt1poiid1,1 iu

1
.
unblocks th<.: user account of the I" l'elilio11ur uml pern1il11 ILlo 11cc1.:t111 HT/\

Portal , lhe I•1 l'elitioner will ilninediululy co111ply wllh ull tllu l'l.lljliirud

formalitic:; and pay the pendi11g lifo / roull tu x ,111 well 1111 1u111p11rui y /

permanent regit lrutio11 fce11 i11 rc1-1 pccl 111' ~1c 11u\tl vch\ ch:11. Copy ul' ll1u uuld

explanation i11 filed hercwillt murkcd uu I'-!>. Stulu111c111 cu111111nl11~ uull.l u111I

!>Lock particul arn !'or the yearn lOI Y,- 1'J i~ li lcll l1u1uwi 1li 111urkuJ w1 I'• Ill.

!Slh pg.corm:
K.~ (WI) 1)).)0µ
ATTESTOI{ I >I l l'( lNI\N'I'

f\ I 1 1.,d • V• .

,\'fib~ \ I.) 1
,
 .. :; 9@ .
Statement contammg sale and stock particulars for the years 2019-20 is filed

herewith marked as P-11 . It is pertinent to point out here that the sub dealers

st
of ,the 1 Petitioner delivered most of the ~foresaid vehicles without

temporary registration numbers. In this regard, it may be noted that trading

and selling two wheeler automobiles is a very competitive business. The

market drives the dealers to constantly evolve new schemes and d iscounts to

attract customers and enlarge their market share. In rural towns and villages,

sometimes the sub dealers tend to deliver the vehicles on credit in order to

attract the customers pending the registration process. In due course, all the
0

required formalities are completed. In any event, the' Petitioners do not

monitor and oversee the affairs of its sub dealers on a day-to-day basis and

as a result could not immediately rectify the delivery o f vehicles without

temporary registration numbers. 0

st
11. I submit that in addition to seizing the showroom of the 1

Petitioner, the Respondent lodged complaint dated 16.08.2019 before the

Station House Officer, Nagarampalem Police Station, alleging that 10276

st
vehicles have been sold by the 1 Petitioner during the, financial year 2018-

2019 and 2912 vehicles between 01.04.2019 to 02.08.2019, that a total of

st
1025 vehicles have been delivered by the 1 Petitioner without temporary

registration numbers, that out of the said 1025 vehicle~, two invoices have

been raised for 63 vehicles, that written ~tatements from 139 purchasers

have been obtained and that some of t!1em directly purchased the vehicles

9 th pg.corrs:
I( . {j)~ {j}1a
ATTESTOR DEPONENT

-
 . 10{0_
that the said vehicles
are plying on road
from the aforesaid showroom,
u • • • ·n violation of Section 39 of
1
without payment of life tax and regi strauon tees -

. APMV Taxation Act, Rule 81 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, Sect1011 4(5) of the
th
the CMV Rules read with GO Ms.No.31 dated 06 :07 ·2018 • at it is

s1 • • d' tl through its sub-dealers

therefore proved that the 1 Petitioner irec Y or .

collected life tax and regist.ratio;1 fees from customers and did not remit th e

same to the Govenunent in violation of Memo dated 03.09.2009 and Rule 42

0

of the CMV Rules, and that the Government incu.rred .a loss of more than

Rs.80 lakhs towards life tax and registration fees in respect of the aforesaid

I 025 vehicles. Pu.rsuant to the said complaint, FIR No.235 of 2019 was
C

registered against Petitioners I and 2 for commission of offences under

,
Sections 406, 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Copy of the

said complaint along with the fIR is filed herewith collectively marked as P-

12.

12. I submit that Section 39 of the MV Act prohibits a person from

driving any motor vehicle and an o_wner from causing °'_permitting a vehicle ( ,.\ I, , "

to be driven in any public place without registration. Section 39 does not (

pertain to a dealer of the vehicl:s ~nd has no relevance !~ alleged violation

of delivering vehicles without temporary registration number. Section 4(5)

of the APMV Taxation Act provides that no vehicle shall be used in any

public place without license. Section 4(5) also penains to user of a vehicle

but not the dealer. Rule 42 of the CMV Rules, stipul_ates that no holder of

trade certificate shall deliver a motor vehicle to a purchaser without a

10 th pg.corrs: K-9~o/
ATIESTOR DEPONENT
 9 :: I 1 ::

registration, whether temporary or permanent.' As per nRule 44, if the

Registering Authority has reason to believe that the holder. of the trade

certificate has not complied with the provisions of Rules 39 to 43, it may,

after giving the holder an opportunity of being hurt, suspend or cancel the

trade certificate. Violation of Rule 42 in itself does not constitute

commission of any offence either under the CMV Rules or IPC. Rule 81 of

the CMV Rules merely prescribes the quantum of fees chargeable by the

Transport Department. As such, none of the ingredients of the offences

alleged in the above FIR are satisfied in the case on hand. Further, the

Petitioners understand and believe the sam~ to be true that no criminal

e

complaint has been registered against any dealer till date for non-compliance

of Rule 42 of the CMV Rules.

on

13. I submit that questioning the above mentioned high handed

st
action of the Respondent in blocking the user account of the 1 Petitioner

and seizing the aforesaid premises, the Petitioners filed W.P.No.11709 of

2019 before this Hon' ble Court and the same ~$ presently pending. This

Hon'ble Court by order dated 21.08 .2019 in IA No.J of 2019 in the said

Writ Petition directed the Respondents to permit the l st Petitioner to log into

and access the RTA Portal and remove the lock and key placed on the
st
aforesaid building, subject to the 1 Petitioner clearing 'the arrears of taxes

and registration charges for temporary or permanent licenses as per Rule 42

of the CMV Rules for 576 vehicles. This Hon ' ble Court further directed the

Respondents to inform the Petitioners nbout the part,·cLil

'
f I 1,·
ars o t 1e ve 1cles
11 th pg.corrs:
ATTESTOR K-<iJ~~~
DEPONENT (I
 .
4P.... 12 ..
..
\
for which payments are to be made within a ;eek. A copy of the said order

is filed herewith marked as P-13.

14. I submit that the aforesaid order was immediately

nd
communicated and handed over to the 2 Respondent on 22.08.2019,

requesting him to furnish the necessary particulars of the vehicles as directed

by this Hon' ble High Comt, ~umish details relating to the exact amount
st
payable by the 1 Petitioner in~respect of 576 vehicl~s, and the mode of

making the said payments.

15. I submit that without complying with the directions of this

" of 2019, the Respondent arbi'tran·1y issue

Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.11709 · d

proceedings No.659/B 1/2019 dated 28.08.2019 cancelling the authorization

st
given to the 1 Petitioner, under Rule 84 of the APMV Rules , t o issue
·

temporary registration numbers in respect of the vehicles sold by it. Copy of

V

the said proceedings is filed hen:with marked as P-14. In the said impugned

proceedings, it is stated that on 02.08.2019 it came to the notice of the

Respondent that the 1st Petiti9ner is indulging in illegal activities like

delivering vehicle without temporary registrations and siphoning of amounts

paid by customers to the Gov~rnment, towards motor vehicles tax and fel:!s;

that it was found from the Dealer Management System (DtvlS) of Hl:!ro Moto

st 1., t· · told 211 vehicles without temporary

Corp Ltd., that tI1e 1· e 1t1oner

registration . during 20 l 8- l 9 and 814 vehicles dming 2019-20 upto

02.08.2019; that the 1st Petitioner ddivcred 1025 vehicles without tempor:.u-y

r-~ f}il°'
1
1i1 pg.corrs: DEPONENT
ATfESTOR
 n

., .
~
~

\ :: 13 ::
~
registration numbers in violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 and Rule 42 of the CMV Rules; that 139 customers who purchased

vehicles from the 1st Petitioner gave written statements to the effect that they

purchased new vehicles directly from the 1st Petitioner or through his sub

dealers and that they paid all amounts relating to taxes, fees and insurance to

the 1st Petitioner or its sub dealers, as the case may be; that it is clear from

tht said written statements that the I ~t Petitioner misappropriated revenue

due to the Government; that FIR No.235 of 2019 dated 17.08.2019 has been

registered in Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur District against

Petitioners 1 and 2 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 406,

409, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code; that it is concluded that

continuing authorization given to tl1e I st Petitioner und;r Rule 84 of the

APMV Rules will only help perpetrate the perpdy on its part which is not in

public interest and public safety; and that therefore the said authorization

given to the 1st Petitioner is cancelled. It is pertinent to point out here that it

is mentioned in the impugned proceedings that authorization granted under

st
Rule 84 · of AMPV Rules was renewed in favaur of the 1 Petitioner by

proceedings dated 15.07.2019 and the same incorrect. Renewal was granted

to the I st Petitioner on 28.06.2019 validating the aforesaid authorization upto

27.06.2020.

16 I submit that the action of the Respondent in issuing the

impugned proceedings dated 28.08.2019 is wholly without jurisdiction,

arbitrary and illegal for the following reasons:

l3'h pg.corrs: f.~0- ~~

ATIESTOR DEPONENT
 =------

a) Rule 42 of the CMV

w ..

Rules, stipulates that no holder of trade

\

certificate shall deliver a motor vehicle \o a purchaser without a registration,

whether temporary or permanent. As per Rule 44, if the Registering

Autl1ority has reason to believe that the holder of the trade certificate has not
to 43 , it may, after giving the
complied with the provisions of Rules 39

holder an opp01tunity of being hurt, suspend or cancel the trade certificate.

The CMV Rules do not confer any power or authority on the Respondent to
0

st
cancel the authorization granted to the l Petitioner under Rule 84 of the

APMV Rules for alleged violation of Rule 42 of the CMV Rules. Rule 84 of

the APMV Rules also does not expressly confer any power or authority on

the Respondent to cancel the authorizatic;in granted thereunder. As such the

said action of the Respondent is wholly without jurisdiction or authority.

b) No prior notice whatsoever has been issued to the Petitioners

before issuance of . the impugned <proceedings. As such, no adequate

opportunity of hearing has been provided to the Petitioners before

Q

st
cancellation of the authorization given to the 1 Petitio~er under Rule 84 o f
Q

the APMV Rules. It is well settled that prior notice has to be mandatorily

issued and an adequate opportunity of hearing should be afforded before

undertaking any punitive action entailing civil or penal consequences. It is

0 '•

pe1tinent to point out here that eve1\ lhl! show cause notices dated 03.08.201 9

and l 0.08.2019 issued by the Respondent do not contemplate cancellation of

the authorization granted under R.uk 84 of the APMV Rule~. lt is evident

that the impugned proceedings havl! not been issued in pursu:m ce of the said

14 th pg.corrs: K-9~ 9~o..

ATIESTOR DEPONENT
 ~
r.

:: 15 ::
~
show cause notices. In fact, the impugned proceedings do not even give any

reference to the said show cause notices. Furthermore, it is stated in the

impugned proceedings that 139 customers gave written statements against

the I st Petitioner. Copies of the said statements have not been furnished to

the Petitioners despite several requests. As such t~e Petitioners are unable to
- '
verify the veracity of the said statements, submit their explanations thereto
~

and point out any deficiencies therein. The Petitioners are not even aware as

st
to whether the said 139 customers have purchased the vehicles from the I

Petitioner or its sub dealers. The entire enquiry has b~en conducted by the
•
Respondent behind the back of the Petitioners without furnishing any

relevant information to them. As the impugned proceedings have been

issued without affording any prior opportunity to the ~etitioners, the same is

violative of the principles of naturai justice.

c) It is stated in the impugned proceedings that on 02.08.2019, it

st
came to the notice of the Respondent that the 1 Petitioner is siphoning off

the amounts paid by the customers towards taxes and fees. Curiously the

said aspect was not mentioned either of the aforesaid show cause notices

dated 03 .08 .2019 and 10.08.2019. In fact, the show cause notice dated

03.08.2019 gives reference to the telephonic i,nstructioris received from the

office of the Jransport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, while the complaint

dated l 6.0g.2019 lodged by the Respondent before the Nagarampalem

Police Station states that the aforesaid showroom was inspected m

02.08.2019 in response to a complaint. Details relatingJo the alleged

15 th pg.corrs: /{ 1Jatko ~11;~

ATIESTOR DEPONENT

-.I
 c[f)
:: 16 ::
. d t have not been furnished
complaint that was lodged agamst the Respon en ·
. the same to be true that
to the Petitioners till date. I understan d an d b e l1eve .
st
no complaints have be~n lodged against the 1 Petitioner prior to
0

02.08.2019. It is therefore , evident that the Respondent undertook the

aforementioned illegal and high handed action only at the instance of the

Transp01t Conunissioner, Andlu·a Pradesh and on account of the political

pressure exerted by the mling paity in power.

st
d) As already stated supra, the 1 Petitioner submitted letters dated

06.08.2019 and 17.08.2019 to the Respondent setting out the details relating

to the number of vehicles that may have been delivered without issuar.ce of

temporary registration numbers. As per the said letters, the -number of

vehicles that may have been delivered without temporary registration

numbers does not exceed 575 . Without verifying the contents of the said

letters and the actual stock particulars, the Respondent unilaterally came to

the conclusion that 1025 vehicles have been delivered. by the Respondent

without issuing temporary registration numbers. The said assumption is

arbitrary and contrary to the actual stock of vehicles maintained by the 1,,

Petitioner. The Respondent also failed to give reference to th~ aforesaid

letters and the stand taken by the l st Petitioner in relation· to the alleged

violations.

e) The impugned action 1s based on the haphazard physical

inspections conducted by the Respondent and his staff without any prior

16th pg.corrs:
ATTESTOR
 ~ :: 17 ::
st
notice to the 1 Petitioner and in the absence of relevant personnel.

Furthermore, by blocking the user acco~nt of the I. st Petitioner and seizing its
st
premises, the 1 Petitioner was prevented from accessing its business

records and rectifying any defects relating to delivery of motor vehicles. The

I Respondents have unlawfully infringed the fundamental right of the

,,
Petitioners to carry on their trade and business and the same is

unconstitutional.

t) I understand and believe the same to be true that the

Respondent has never seized any showroom or cancelled the authorization

granted under Rule 84 of the APMV Rules for alleged violation of Rule 42

of CMV Rules . The Respondent has at the most imposed fines and penalty

on dealers for contravening Rule 42. The only prejudice that occurs to the

Respondent in . the event of delivery of motor vehicles without temporary

registration numbers is loss of life tax I road tax and registration fees . As

such the impugned action of the Respondent iG unfair, discriminatory and

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution ofln1ia.

nd
g) The -father of the 2 Petitioner is a renowned politician

belonging to the Telugu Desflm Pflrty. He served the State of Andhra

Pradesh and its peoples 'in various Cflpacities in.,cluding as Speaker, Minister,

Member of Legislative Assembly, etc. The rival political party in power has

unjustly prevailed over the Respondent and pressurized him to take coercive

action against the Petitioners in order to harass them and create hurdles in

1ih pg.corrs:
ATIESTOR
k. ~ (j)µf°'
DEPONENT
 '
. 11 'of the aforesaid coercive steps
. a be noted here that a
their business. It m Y · . t.h e Government,
:tl • fter change in
have been taken against the Petitioners OI y a
.. e victims of political vendetta
with a view to defame them. The Petitioners ar
. . " d action initiated against them.
and there are no bonafides m the unpugne

d' the
I submit that after issuing the impugned procee mgs,
17.
1 · g the details relating to
Respondent issued Memo dated 29.0 8 .2 019 enc osm
· · h s are due
the 576 vehicles in respect of which taxes and reg1stqtt1on c arge ·

In the said Memo, the 1st Petitioner was directed to pay the dues by logging

into its RTA Portal. The lock placed on the aforesaid premises was also

removed. Copy of th~ said Memo is filed herewith marked as P-15.

However, under the pretext_ of the impugned proceedings dated 28.08.2019

st
and cancellation of the authorization granted to the 1 Petitioner under Rule

84 of the APMV Rules, the Respondent refused to unblock the user account

of the 1st Petitioner to log into the RTA Portal, despite the order dated
- .
21.08.2019 passed by this. Hon' ble Court ~in I.A.No. l of 2019 in
st
W .P .No.11709 of 2019. The Respondent informed the 1 Petitioner that it

cannot access the RTA Portai without authorization under Rule 84 of the

APMV Rules. As a result, the l ; t Petitioner is unable to make requisite

payments in respect of the aforesaid 576 vehicles to the Respondent. lf the

Respondent unblocks the user account of the I st Petitioner, we unde1take to

immediately clear all the pending taxes and foes and rectify the deficiencies

pertaining to delivery of 576 vehicles without temporary registration

numbers. Furthennore, we undertake not to deliver any vehicle without

18th pg.corrs:
ATTESTOR
k-cv~r;lrr
DEPONENT
\
 complying with all the rules and repulations including issuance of temporary

j registration numbers under Rule 42 of the CMV Rules. As such, public

interest and public safety will not be put at any risk if the 1st Petitioner is

permitted to continue its operations. Under the circumstances, unless this

Hon' ble Court is pleased to pass appropriate orders, tlie Petitioners would

suffer grave and irreparable loss.

18. J submit that under the circumstances, the Petitioners have no

other effective, alternative remedy than to invoke the extraordjnary

jurisdiction of this Hon''?le Comt under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. The Petitioners have not filed any other Writ Petition or initiated any

other proceedings before any Court or Authority for t~e relief sought for in

this Writ Petition.

19. It is therefore prayed that this 1-Ion'ble Cc,urt may be pleased to

issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the

nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action ~f the Respondent in

issuing Proceedings No.659/Bl/2019 dated 28 .08 .2019, cancelling the

st
authroisation granted to the 1 Petitioner to issue te~porary registration

numbers, under Rule 84 of the Andhra Pradesh ~otor Vehicles Rules, 1989,

without issuing any prior notice or affording an adequate opportunity of

hearing to the Petitioners, without considering the letters dated 06.08.2019

st
and l?.08 .2019 submitted by the 1 Petitioner or giving any reference

thereto in the proceedings dated 28.08.2019, and without considering the

19th pg.corrs: r.<P~ <iJif 0-

ATfESTOR oEPoNENT
 w :: 20 ::

019 passed by this Hon'ble Court inLA.No.l of 2019 in

• ·2
order dated 2108
l l 709 of 2019, as wholly without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal,
W.P.N o.
· t unreasonable , violative of the principles of the natural justice,
unJUS,

' contrary to Central Motor y ehicles Rules, 1989, contrary to the Andhra

Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and contrary to law, and to

consequently set aside the aforesaid proceedings dated 28.08 .2019 and pass

such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances

of the case.

20. It is also necess;:iry in the interests of Justice that this Hon'ble

Court may be pleased toy suspend the Proceedings No.659/B 1/2019 dated

28.08.2019 issued by the Respondent by further directing him to forthwith

un-block the user account - AP67413286 of the 1st Petitioner to log into and

access the RTA Portal, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass

such other order or orders as are dee~ed fit and proper in the circumstances

of the case.

th
K-?~<f)~CA
20 and last pg. corrs: DEPONENT

Solemnly affirmed ~d signed BEFORE ME

nd
on this the 2 day of Septembey, 2019,
at Hyderabad.

ADVOCATE:HYDERABAD

ATff,s'IOK
I