Judgment :- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Memo No.965/C3/HE/2012, dated 28-06-2012, issued by respondent No.1 and to issue a consequential direction to respondent No.1 to release the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No.AP/11Y 4926 seized under Vehicle Check Report No.1736582, dated 26-02-2012. I have heard Mr.B.Siva Rama Krishnaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport appearing for the respondents. The petitioner holds a State Wide Contract Carriage Permit. On 26-06-2012, his vehicle referred to above was seized by respondent No.2 under a check report wherein the following allegations were made: 1. As per my enquiry with the driver and passengers travelling in the vehicle, there was no express or implied contract between the owner of the vehicle and passengers. The vehicle is not engaged as whole. All the individual passengers going for different purposes. Thus, found the vehicle being misused as stage carriage against permit conditions. The passengers were picked at different places to set down at different places collecting individual fares. Statement obtained is attached. Violated Section 66 (1) and 192 (A) of M.V. Act and Rule 85 of the CMV Rules, 1989.” The petitioner approached respondent No.1 with an application for release of the seized vehicle. Purporting to consider that application, respondent No.1 has passed the following order: “Attention of Sri Md. Murtuja Ahmed, AMVI, ICP, Bhoraj, Adilabad Check post, is invited to the reference cited, and is informed that the registered owner has filed a representation in this office u/r Rule 448-B vide reference 1st cited seeking release of the vehicle. In this regard, the AMVI is requested to launch prosecution against the registered owner and driver of the vehicle No.APHY4926 (CC Bus) in the Court of law, for the irregularities committed vide reference 1st cited.” On a careful reading of the above-reproduced contents of the order passed by respondent No.1, I have no doubt in my mind that respondent No.1 failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. Under Section 207 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Rule 448-B of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, power is vested in respondent No.1 to release the seized vehicles. It is trite that such power is always coupled with an obligation to exercise it in a fair, discreet, objective and transparent manner. Under Section 207 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Rule 448-B of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, power is vested in respondent No.1 to release the seized vehicles. It is trite that such power is always coupled with an obligation to exercise it in a fair, discreet, objective and transparent manner. Irrespective of the prejudices or predilections, which an Officer might have in his mind, while discharging his powers conferred by the statute involving the rights of third parties, he should act in a manner which should not create any apprehension in the minds of the third parties on the neutrality or objectivity of the authority. If respondent No.1 had felt that the petitioner is not entitled to the release of the vehicle, he should have passed the order to that effect by giving reasons in support thereof. Respondent No.1 miserably failed to follow this procedure. He did not finally conclude whether the petitioner’s vehicle deserves to be released or not. Even if respondent No.1 feels that the petitioner is liable for prosecution, that by itself would not deter him from considering the petitioner’s application on merits. This Court is thoroughly dissatisfied with the manner in which respondent No.1 has exercised the power vested in him. As regards the relief claimed by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, as on today, the petitioner’s liability, if any for payment of additional tax, has not been determined. Pending adjudication of the petitioner’s civil and criminal liabilities, no purpose will be served by keeping his vehicle under detention as the same is prone to deterioration in its condition if it is kept idle and its continuous detention would cause serious hardship to his interests. If the petitioner has committed violation of the provisions of the Act and the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, on determination of his liability, he is bound to pay the tax or penalty subject to the remedies available to him in law. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms: 1. Respondent No.1 shall release the vehicle bearing registration No.AP/11Y – 4926 to the petitioner subject to its depositing Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) with respondent No.1 and filing an undertaking that it will not alienate or in any manner transfer the ownership of the said vehicle, pending determination of its liability. 2. Respondent No.1 shall release the vehicle bearing registration No.AP/11Y – 4926 to the petitioner subject to its depositing Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) with respondent No.1 and filing an undertaking that it will not alienate or in any manner transfer the ownership of the said vehicle, pending determination of its liability. 2. As and when the petitioner’s liability is determined by respondent No.1 and also by the jurisdictional Magistrate, in case prosecution is initiated, respondent No.1 is at liberty to enforce the same subject to the remedies available to the petitioner.