R. Subbiah, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. R.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed seeking for a mandamus directing the respondents to release the vehicle bearing Registration No. AP 28 Y 5372 with the Hydraulic Excavator Tata Hittachi Ex 200 model. The petitioner company has purchased a Hydraulic Excavator of Tata Hitachi make of Model Ex.200 LC with 5.68 MHD Boom, 2.22 M ARM, 0.8 CUM HD Bucket, fitted with 6 BT Tata Cummins engine. The machine is being used for the purpose of the petitioner's Metal Company and it was operated by the trained operators. Since the said machine is put into use for about five years, its condition has been deteriorated and hence it requires repair. Therefore, the machine was sent for repair and full service to the workshop situated at Nellore, through a lorry bearing Regn.No. AP 28 Y 5372 from Palladam to Nellore. When the said lorry was proceeding to Nellore, it was intercepted and detained by the second respondent on 2.5.2015 at Katpadi Check Post, Vellore. At that time, the lorry driver produced all the relevant records, including his driving license. However, the second respondent, not satisfied with the records shown by the driver, issued Goods Detention Notice dated 2.5.2015 on the ground that the goods are transported from Tamil Nadu to Andhra Pradesh without valid records i.e. original invoice copy of the machine. In fact, the original invoice of the machine is with the Indian Overseas Bank, Palladam Branch, Tiruppur District, as loan was granted by the bank. The machine was sent for repair to Nellore and not for any other commercial purpose. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court with the above prayer.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the Hydraulic Excavator machine was purchased by availing loan from the bank, the original receipt is kept by the bankers and therefore, the lorry driver has produced a duplicate of the said invoice and all other relevant documents, but the same has not been accepted by the second respondent. Since the machine is to be repaired very urgently for its effective operation, the same was taken to Nellore. The learned counsel has also produced a copy of the certificate issued by the banker, dated 6.5.2015, proving the possession of the original invoice with the bank.;