ORDER :- 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 9.9.2010. 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. 2. Life tax was paid for the vehicle, at the time of registration itself. On 22.5.2012, 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 22.5.2012, 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. 3. 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 WP 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 3.7.2012, 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. 4. The 3rd respondent submitted a report, dated 24.8.2012, 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 1.11.2012, 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. 5. 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 1.11.2012, 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. 5. On behalf of the respondents, the 1st respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit. She narrated the various steps that have taken place from the seizure of the vehicle, till the impugned orders were passed. She has also enclosed copies of proceedings. An objection is raised as to the maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground that alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle was originally registered with the RTA Central, Khairatabad and the same chassis number entered on the RC, is present, when it was inspected. He contends that the 2nd respondent tried his level best to seize the vehicle, on one ground or the other, and when everything was found to be in order, he seized the vehicle under a lame excuse and caused untold hardship and harassment to the petitioner and his family members. He submits that the 1st respondent did not inspect the vehicle physically nor verified the original records, and has passed the impugned order, just to exhibit her vindictiveness, on account of filing of the writ petition, seeking release. He contends that nowhere in the proceedings it was mentioned that the embossing of the numbers on the chassis must be of a particular specifications and that the one present on the vehicle does not accord with it. 7. Learned Counsel further submits that it was only when a discrepancy as to the number of the chassis between the one that was present when the vehicle was registered; and the one found at the time of check; is noticed, that steps could have been initiated for cancellation of the registration. He submits that when a specific request was made to furnish the copies of the proceedings, on the basis of which the show-cause notice was issued, it was/ not complied with and a laconic order was passed. He submits that when a specific request was made to furnish the copies of the proceedings, on the basis of which the show-cause notice was issued, it was/ not complied with and a laconic order was passed. He submits that all the three respondents have acted in tandem and flouted all norms of discharge of powers conferred upon them under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder. 8. Learned Government Pleader for Transport submits that the number on the chassis of the vehicle of the petitioner was suspected to have been tampered, and accordingly, seizure was affected. He contends that according to Rule 192 of the Rules, the chassis must contain the particulars not only of the serial number, but also of month and year of manufacture and that the same have not been found on the vehicle of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner did not avail the remedy of appeal. 9. The vehicle was originally registered with the RTA Central, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. On purchase of the vehicle by the petitioner, a resident of Nizamabad, the 1st respondent became the Registering Authority. The vehicle was seized on 22.5.2012 by the 2nd respondent only on the basis of suspicion about the genuinity of the chassis number. The ground reads: "The chassis number punched on the vehicle chassis appears to be tampered. Hence, suspected the genuineness of the vehicle. The chassis No. pencil print affixed to the VCR. Hence seized the vehicle under Section 207 of MV Act and kept at O/o DTC, Nellore for its safe custody." 10. The petitioner produced all the documents pertaining to the vehicle and no infirmity was found therein. It appears that the effort made by the petitioner to get the vehicle released by approaching the 3rd respondent did not fructify. Obviously, on being insisted, or on an advice, he filed an application for release of the vehicle before the 1st respondent. Since the only ground of seizure was the discrepancy as to the number, the 1st respondent could have ordered release, even while continuing the steps for verification. She exhibited her authoritarianism and has chosen to call for a report from the 3rd respondent. When the petitioner approached this Court complaining about the non-disposal of the application, a direction was issued to the 1st respondent to conclude the proceedings within the stipulated time. 11. She exhibited her authoritarianism and has chosen to call for a report from the 3rd respondent. When the petitioner approached this Court complaining about the non-disposal of the application, a direction was issued to the 1st respondent to conclude the proceedings within the stipulated time. 11. The 1st respondent received the report from the RTA Nizamabad, on 24.8.2012. Based upon the report, the 1st respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 20.10.2012 requiring the petitioner to explain as to why the registration itself be not cancelled under Section 55(5) of the Act. The basis for issuance of the show-cause notice is stated as under: "Dy. Transport Commissioner, Nellore has re-inspected the seized vehicle and stated that the MVI (Flying Squad), Nellore has verified the chassis print of the above vehicle and compared with that of the another vehicle of the same category and found that the chassis number available on the seized vehicle is of unusual size and there are caps for each letter of the print and also there is no code indicating the month and year of manufacture. Further the M.V.I. (Flying Squad) has also enquired with the Mechanical Engineer of M/s. Harsha Motors, Dealer of Toyota and also confirmed that the chassis number on the vehicle AP09AT8415 is repunched. The registered owner was given a notice to appear before the authority, Office of the DTC, Nizamabad on 15.9.2012 at 12 noon along with all connected original documents. Accordingly, the owner appeared before the authority, Office of D.T.C., Nizamabad on 15.9.2012 and produced only the original Registration Certificate and failed to produce other connected documents. The case has been enquired into. The order of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh is considered. As per the report of the DTC, Nellore, the chassis number on the vehicle bearing No.AP09AT8415 is repunched and the vehicle bearing Registration No.AP09A T8415 is not a genuine one." 12. After receiving the show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply, dated 29.10.2012. He pleaded, inter alia as under: "In this connection, I submit that the report of the MVI, Flying Squad, Nellore is not based on facts of the case. I submit that the checking officer and the enquiry officer are one and the san1e and the enquiry report is illegal on this count itself. A prosecutor can never be a judge in any proceedings. I submit that the checking officer and the enquiry officer are one and the san1e and the enquiry report is illegal on this count itself. A prosecutor can never be a judge in any proceedings. The MVI, Flying Squad who alleged that the chassis appeared to be tampered has reiterated the same contents in his enquiry report. Though it is stated that he has verified and compared with another vehicle of the same category and found that the chassis number available on the above vehicle is unusual size and there are caps for each letter of the print and also there is no code indicating the month and year of manufacture and confirmed that the vehicle is not genuine one, a copy of that report has not been made available to me to go into the contents of the report and the authority and source of that conclusion. In the absence of that report, I would not be able to offer my explanation. Any action taken against the registration of my vehicle without disclosing the authority and source of the report of the MVI and the copy of the MVI report, the proposal for cancellation of registration would be illegal and against the principles of natural justice." 13. The minimum one expected from the 1st respondent was to furnish the copy of the report and other material received by her from the 3rd respondent, to the petitioner. Even at the cost of repetition, it is to be noted that the 1st respondent did not have the access to the vehicle, or to the original record pertaining to the vehicle. Further, she did not indicate the provision of law, which is said to have been contravened either by the manufacturer or by any other person. The relevant portion of the order, dated 1.11.2012, passed by the 1st respondent reads: "The Dy. Transport Comn1issioner, Nellore has re-inspected the seized vehicle and stated that the MVI (Flying Squad), Nellore has verified the chassis print of the above vehicle and compared with that of the another vehicle of the san1e category and found that the chassis number available on the seized vehicle is of unusual size and there are caps for each letter of the print and also there is no code indicating the month and year of manufacture and confirmed that the vehicle is not a genuine one. The same has been informed to the owner of the vehicle vide reference 10th cited. In the reference 11th cited, the owner of the vehicle has submitted an explanation asking for a copy of the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Flying Squad, Nellore. It is to inform that the contents of the report submitted by Motor Vehicles Inspector, Flying Squad, Nellore have already been furnished in the memo issued vide reference 10th cited. The explanation submitted by the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.AP09AT8415 LMV Omni is not satisfactory. Hence, the Registration Certificate of the Vehicle No.AP09AT8415 LMV Onmi is hereby cancelled under Section 55(5) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988." 14. She just glassed over the request made by the petitioner for furnishing of the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Flying Sqaud, Nellore, by stating that they have already furnished in the memo issued on 20.10.2012. There was no reference to the enclosure of copies in the said notice dated 20.10.2012 and the petitioner made request on 29.10.2012. 15. It is somewhat interesting to note the plea of the 1st respondent in her counter-affidavit. In Para 6(d) of the counter-affidavit, it is stated: "It is submitted that accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Regional Transport Officer on 15.9.2012 and produced only the original Registration Certificate and no other documents like Invoice etc., are available with him. The vehicle is originally registered at RTA Central, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. At this stage, it could not be decided whether it is original punching of the chassis number tallies with the Registration Certificate. Accordingly, the Regional Transport Authority, Khairatabad Central, Hyderabad where the petitioner's vehicle was originally registered was requested to send the original registration file pertaining to the petitioner's vehicle on telephone, but the Regional Transport Officer had not responded. Meanwhile, I was placed as Full Additional Charge of Dy. Transport Commissioner, Nizamabad from 14.9.2012 vide TC Proceedings No.11542/C4/2011 and after taking charge a Letter No.1586/A1/NZB/2012 dated 20.9.2012 was addressed to the Joint Transport Commissioner, Secretary, RTA to send the original registration file in respect of the Vehicle No.AP09AT8415 LMV Omni Bus (Qualis) to verify the chassis number. The Regional Transport Officer, Office of the Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad informed me vide Lr.No.Nil/CI6/HC/2012 dated 23.10.2012 stating that the original registration file of the vehicle bearing No.AP09AT8415 is not readily traceable as the concerned Record Assistant is on leave." 16. The Regional Transport Officer, Office of the Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad informed me vide Lr.No.Nil/CI6/HC/2012 dated 23.10.2012 stating that the original registration file of the vehicle bearing No.AP09AT8415 is not readily traceable as the concerned Record Assistant is on leave." 16. One just cannot expect any final conclusion as to the genuinity of the number on the chassis, unless the original record is procured. If the record is not available, the petitioner cannot be penalised. The authoritarian approach and attitude of the 1st respondent, an officer, by name, G. Mamatha Prasad, is evident from Paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit: “.....It is submitted that the non-supply of the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report as sought for by the petitioner by the representation of the petitioner could not prejudice the interest of the petitioner as the purport and contents of the enquiry report was already referred in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner. The burden is on the petitioner to show that the chassis number punched on the chassis is genuine one and dispel the reasonable suspicion of the genuineness of the vehicle by adducing proper evidence. Hence the cancellation of the registration of the vehicle as per Section 55(5) of the Motor Vehicle Act following the procedure and the issue of show-cause notice and the order of rejection of the release of the vehicle has been considered expeditiously as per the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.1980l of 2012 dated 3.7.2012.” 17. These few sentences are sufficient to hold that the officer has no respect for law, and it is a surprise that persons with such attitude towards citizens to hold such an important position. She told a patent lie to the petitioner, when she observed in the impugned order that the copy of the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Flying Squad, was already furnished to the petitioner. At least, in the counter-affidavit, she stated the truth that she did not furnish the copy. 18. Whatever may have been the sadistic pleasure, which an average Motor Vehicle Inspector, derives in seizing the vehicles, even where everything is alright, with a vehicle the Registering. Authority is required to be cautious. Unless the Registering Authority is fully satisfied about the violation alleged against the owner of the motor vehicle, no penal steps can be taken. 18. Whatever may have been the sadistic pleasure, which an average Motor Vehicle Inspector, derives in seizing the vehicles, even where everything is alright, with a vehicle the Registering. Authority is required to be cautious. Unless the Registering Authority is fully satisfied about the violation alleged against the owner of the motor vehicle, no penal steps can be taken. If at all there exists any doubt, it cannot be accorded the status of proof, much less the owner be penalised. 19. Any reasonable person in the place of the 2nd respondent, would have referred the matter to the Registering Authority for further verification. He acted in an arbitrary, capricious and unlawful manner by seizing the vehicle just on suspicion, that too, with reference to a matter upon which the petitioner has no control. The only basis for the suspicion was that the letters were of unusual size and there are caps on each letter. This could have constituted the basis, if only what was printed on the chassis did not accord with any provision of law. He did not indicate as to what usual. At any rate, none of the respondents could have formed an opinion, unless they have got authenticated information from the manufacturer or unless they have seen the original record. If the chassis contained the same number in the same pattern, when it was registered, all the steps taken by the respondents would have the effect of finding fault with the very registration. 20. The petitioner and his family members were put to untold hardship and huge financial loss, on account of the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents. Once the 1st respondent admitted that she did not furnish the report received from the 3rd respondent, even after a request is made by the petitioner, clear violation of principles of natural justice, emerges. 21. The plea of alternative remedy cannot be accepted. The petitioner has already been shown the taste of the remedies from Ceaser to Ceaser and there is no point in subjecting him to another round of humiliation and depravity. 22. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The loss sustained by the petitioner, on account of the patently illegal and mala fide seizure and detention is taken at Rs.5,000/-, per month. 22. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The loss sustained by the petitioner, on account of the patently illegal and mala fide seizure and detention is taken at Rs.5,000/-, per month. The petitioner shall be paid a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss sustained by him in equal shares by the officials, who held the offices of respondents 1 and 2, at the relevant point of time. The vehicle shall be released forthwith and four weeks time is granted for payment of the amount. There shall be no order as to costs. 23. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall stand disposed of.