Allowed

T. Ramakrishnan, v. the District Collector Cum

Madras HC10 Oct 2011WP(MD)/11527/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Regional Transport Officer to release a seized mini-bus belonging to the petitioner. The court held that under Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the authority must release the vehicle after verification and cannot retain it indefinitely.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus directing the release of the seized mini bus, subject to conditions and production of documents.

T. Ramakrishnan, Vs the District Collector Cum — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.10.2011

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶6

Writ Petition(MD)No.11527 of 2011

¶7

T.Ramakrishnan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, cum The Regional Transport Authority, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

¶10

2.The Regional Transport Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶11

3.The Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II, Regional Transport Office, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶12

4.The Inspector of Police, Vadasery Police Station, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to release the mini bus bearing Registration No.TN-74-E-7817 seized on 16.09.2011 and hand it over to the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramadhas

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss Government Advocate.

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner is the owner of a mini bus bearing Registration No.TN-74-E-7817. He also holds a permit to ply the vehicle from Vadasery Bus Stand to Mathias Nagar (via), M.S.Road Turning, Krishnankoil, VAO Office Turning, Raja Kumar Thirumanamandapam, Aruguvilai Jn, Puliyadi Turning, Puliyadi Bus Stop, Aanaiparai, Kavimoni Nager, Erachakulam High School, Sun Polytechnic and Gnanadhasapuram.

¶18

2.On 16.09.2011, the third respondent seized the vehicle under Section 207 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, after giving a representation on 17.09.2011 to the second respondent, the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has come up with the above writ petition seeking a direction to the second respondent to release the mini bus.

¶19

¶20

3.Heard Mr.M.Ramadhas, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

4.On 04.10.2011, this Court ordered notice to the learned Government Advocate. Today, Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Government Advocate, on instructions submitted that the vehicle was seized for violation of permit conditions. The learned Government Advocate also submitted that the second respondent had necessary power under Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the seizure was perfectly justified.

¶22

5.However, sub Section (2) of Section 207 makes it clear that the seizure of the vehicles is not a permanent feature. The transport authority or any officer authorised by the State Government in that behalf is always entitled under sub Section (2) of Section 207 to release the vehicle after verification of the documents and subject to such conditions as it may deem fit and proper. While the seizure of a vehicle may be justified, its detention for a long period of time may not be in the interest of either the owner of the vehicle or even the Government. It is necessary in such cases that consequential orders are passed within a time frame by the appropriate authorities.

¶23

6.In view of the above, the writ petition is ordered directing the release of mini bus owned by the petitioner bearing Registration No.TN-74-E-7817, subject to such conditions as the second respondent may impose and also subject to the condition that the petitioner produces necessary documents. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

sms Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶25

/True copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

1.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

¶29

CUM THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL.

¶30

2.THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶31

3.THE MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR GRADE-II, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶32

4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADASERY POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶33

+1 CC TO M/S.M.RAMADHAS, ADVOCATE SR.NO.34940.

¶34

+1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.NO.35041.

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

2P/7C

¶37

Writ Petition(MD)No.11527 of 2011 Dated:10.10.2011

¶38

RPB : 11.10.2011 [I.T.]

T. Ramakrishnan, v. the District Collector Cum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Ramakrishnan, v. the District Collector Cum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Selvi Vs Rajagopal (Deceased)

M.G.Devasahayam Vs Sir John D Monte Trust

Dorothy Thomas Vs Rex Arul

Madavi, Vs the Deputy Superintendent

O.L. Venkatachalam Vs the District Collector

R. Manonmani, Vs the Registrar of Co-Op.