Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court issued contempt notices to senior police and transport officials, including Director General of Police (DGP) CV Anand, Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic) Joel Davis, Transport Commissioner K Illambarthi, former DGP Shivadhar Reddy and personnel of the Chikkadpally Police Station.
The petition alleges continued violation of a court order that had directed authorities to refrain from taking coercive action against citizens over pending traffic challans. The High Court also named officials of the Chikkadpally Police Station, including a Circle Inspector and two Sub-Inspectors, in the contempt proceedings.
The petition was filed by V Raghavendra Chary, a private employee from Secunderabad, who had earlier moved a writ petition in 2025 challenging the imposition of illegal challan amounts and coercive enforcement by Telangana Traffic Police.
On January 20 this year, the High Court had directed the respondents to ensure no coercive steps, including vehicle seizure, were taken against citizens for pending challans, and that due procedure under the Central Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules be followed.
The contempt petition alleges that despite this order, police personnel continue to seize vehicles, snatch keys from commuters and demand physical copies of vehicle registration certificates (RC) and driving licences (DL), refusing to accept digital documents available on the Telangana government’s own RTA MWallet app.
The triggering incident involves advocate Mallikarjuna Magham, who was stopped near the RTC/VST crossroads on April 9, while on his way to court. The officer, identified as Sub-Inspector V Laxmaiah, allegedly snatched the keys of his white Honda Activa and seized the vehicle. When Magham showed his digital RC and DL on the Telangana RTA MWallet, the officer refused to accept them and demanded physical originals before releasing the vehicle.
The vehicle was held for over two hours before being released. A challan was issued at 11.19 am that day, invoking Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act – a provision under which, the petition argues, vehicle seizure is not legally contemplated.
Magham has filed a separate supporting affidavit in the case, noting that no prior notice was issued to him and that the seizure of his original RC was entirely without legal basis.The petitioner further alleges that the senior respondents, including the Transport Commissioner, have issued no circular, memo or written communication to ground-level officers directing compliance with the January 20 court order, amounting to apparent contempt.
