This case closed a writ petition challenging a coercive vehicle seizure circular. The Court held that because the interim order restrained seizure and the authorities complied, no further adjudication was required, and the petition was dismissed without costs.
Petition closed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.22596 of 2017
ORDER :
This present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
“…to issue Writ, order or direction or any other appropriate order in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the circular Memo No.1037/R/2017, dated 13.06.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and also contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents and their subordinates not to take any coercive steps including seizure against the vehicles of the petitioners bearing Nos.AR01 G 4488, AR 11 3736 of the 1st petitioner, AR01 H 9299, AR02 1899 of the 2nd petitioner, AR01 G 6288, AR01 G 4288 of the 3rd petitioner, AR 01 G 6488, AR 02 6633 and AR02 6363 of the 4th petitioner, AR 01 G 5188 of the 5th petitioner, AR01 G 5388 of the 6th petitioner, AR 11 3791 of the 7th petitioner, AR 02 4356 of the 8th petitioner, AR02 5954 of the 9th petitioner, PY01 CL 7575 of the 10th petitioner, AR01 G 8118 of the 11th petitioner, AR02 A 8899, PY01 CL 6565 of the 12th petitioner, AR01 G 7997 of the 13th petitioner, AR02 A 7799 of the 14th petitioner, AR01 J 3222 & AR01 J 4222 of the 15th petitioner, AR04 7866, AR04 7786 of the 16th petitioner and AR01 T 1899 and AR01 T 1566 of the 17th petitioner…”
“Post on 17.07.2017.
2. Meanwhile, the respondents are directed not to seize the vehicles of the petitioners, which are alleged to be plying
2
violating the condition under Rule 85(3) of the Central Vehicles Rules, 1989.”
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
Date: 04.04.2023 KBS
3
130
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
(Closed)
WRIT PETITION No.22596 of 2017
Date: 04.04.2023
KBS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition requires further adjudication or only requires to be closed due to compliance with the interim order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
Transport Authorities (Respondents)
V. Sujatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
