Disposed

R.Sigamani v. the Transport Commissioner

Kerala HC12 Mar 2021WP(C)/1699/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A stage carriage operator petitioned for removal of black listing on a vehicle transferred to a new owner, alleging liability for tax arrears was baseless. The court directed the transporter to file a representation for a limited inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to file a proper representation before the Regional Transport Officer for a limited enquiry within 3 weeks.

R.Sigamani Vs the Transport Commissioner — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.1699 OF 2021(J)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

R.SIGAMANI AGED 41 YEARS 1/167, NORTH STREET, NORTH POINGAINALIUR, NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT, TAMILNADU REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER R. PRABAHARAN, S/O. RAMALINGAM, DOOR NO. 78, PERUMAL SOUTH STREET, NAGAPATTINAM, TAMILNADU 611 001

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SMT.K.S.SMITHA SRI.V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014

¶11

2 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PALAKKAD 678 001

¶12

3 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, NAGAPATTINAM, TAMILNADU 611 001

¶13

4 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, COIMBATORE CENTRAL, COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU 641 018

¶14

5 NATIONAL INFORMATICS CENTRE, CIVIL STATION, THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD, KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PIN 682 030

¶15

WP(C).No.1699 OF 2021(J)

¶16

¶17

6 THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, 1 SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI 110 001

¶18

7 SMT. RADHA SWAMINATHAN, PROPRIATOR HARIHARASUDHAN TRANSPORT, 215 E, PARSON GANPATH APARTMENTS, SHASTRI ROAD, RAM NAGAR, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU DISTRICT 641 009

¶19

R1-3 BY K.P. HARISH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R5-6 BY SMT.MINI GOPINATH, CGC

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No.1699 OF 2021(J)

¶22

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Dated this the 12th day of March 2021

¶25

The petitioner herein is a stage carriage operator in respect of a vehicle which was operating in Tamil Nadu on the strength of regular permit. Subsequently, vehicle was purchased by the 7^th respondent in 2017 and he applied for transfer of RC ownership. It was understood that the vehicle was black listed due to the audit objections issued by the Officers regarding non delivery of Rs. 1,44,000/- at the Motor Vehicle Check Post, Govindapuram. The contention of the petitioner is that, he has not operated the vehicle in State of Kerala and the above claim is absolutely baseless.

¶26

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Government Pleader, who has filed detailed objection it emerges that the claim is made on the basis of tax arrears. Necessarily, it has been incorporated in the Vahan Site and the vehicle is treated

¶27

to be black listed. Evidently, unless the black listing is

¶28

WP(C).No.1699 OF 2021(J)

¶29

¶30

removed, the Motor Vehicle's Authority cannot proceed with the processing of these applications.

¶31

The petitioner has a specific contention that the amount is not only liable to be paid by the petitioner but it is highly excessive also. The petitioner was not aware of any such liability and it was not convened to him by the earlier owner it was contented.

¶32

Having considered these, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition itself by directing the petitioner to file a proper representation before the 2^nd respondent as expeditiously as possible and on receipt of such an application, the 2^nd respondent shall conduct a limited enquiry with the records at the check post and pass appropriate orders with intimation to the petitioner within 3 weeks thereafter. The petitioner will free to move this Court thereafter, if he is still aggrieved.

¶33

The writ petition is closed accordingly.

¶34

(Sd/-)

¶35

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶36

¶37

WP(C).No.1699 OF 2021(J)

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1699/2021

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20-01-2021 OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, NAGAPATTINAM EVIDENCING REPLACEMENT OF BUS NO. TN-51E-2151 WITH BUS NO.TN-66E-5959

¶42

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO TN-66 E 5959 AS STOOD IN THE NAME OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT

¶43

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RC STATUS AVAILABLE FROM THE VAHAN SOFTWARE RELATING TO VEHICLE NO. TN-66E-5959

¶44

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS DATED 03-01-2020 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO. TN-66 E 5959 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶45

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO-28/2016 DATED 9.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER.

¶46

// True copy // PA To Judge

R.Sigamani v. the Transport Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sigamani v. the Transport Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Registered Metal Crusher Units Owners Association Vs the Transport Commissionr

Wilson K.V Vs the Regional Transport Authority

V.C.Sunilkumar Vs the Co-Operative Arbitration Court

Leelavathy Vs the Transport Commissioner

M/S. Veeranakavu Welfare Co-Operative Society Ltd.No.T 1580 Vs C Sindukumari

Anto John A.S Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation