Disposed

A.Mariselvam v. the Assistant Registering

Madras HC29 Apr 2015WP(MD)/14730/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two writ petitions, the High Court directed the Assistant Registering Authority to issue duplicate Registration Certificates after noting that petitioners had failed to submit a formal application in Form 26. The Court mandated the petitioners to file the recourse application and directed the Police Station to provide a certificate within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to make an application in Form 26; directed Respondents to issue duplicate R.C. books within four weeks of receipt.

A.Mariselvam Vs the Assistant Registering — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.04.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P.(MD)Nos.14730 and 14732 of 2014

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.14730 of 2014:

¶7

A.Mariselvam

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Assistant Registering Authority, The Regional Transport Office, Sivakasi,

¶11

Virudhunagar District.

¶12

2.The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputhur Town Police Station, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to issue the duplicate / copy of the R.C.book bearing registration No.TN-67/AR-8958 (TATA ACE) on the petition of the petitioner dated 08.07.2014.

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.14732 of 2014: R.Karuppasamy

¶16

... Petitioner

¶17

Vs.

¶18

1.The Assistant Registering Authority, The Regional Transport Office, Sivakasi,

¶19

Virudhunagar District.

¶20

2.The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputhur Town Police Station, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to issue the duplicate / copy of the R.C.book bearing registration No.TN-67/AW 3169 (TATA ACE) on the petition of the petitioner dated 08.07.2014.

¶23

For Petitioners : Ms.K.Mahalakshmi For Respondents : Mr.R.Anandaraj, G.A.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

COMMON ORDER

¶27

The petitioners have come forward with the above Writ petitions praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to issue the duplicate / copy of the R.C. books for the vehicles namely, TATA ACE bearing registration Nos.TN67/AR-8958 (TATA ACE) and TN-67/AW 3169 based on the petitions dated 08.07.2014.

¶28

2.The case of the petitioners is that on the request of one S.Radhakrishnan, who contested as independent candidate in Parliamentary Constituency, vehicles of the petitioners bearing registration Nos.TN-67/AR-8958 (TATA ACE) and TN-67/AW 3169 (TATA ACE) have been handed over to him for hire on daily basis and the Election Commission also permitted the said vehicles for election campaign. For verification of the Registration Certificate book by the Election Commission, the petitioners handed over the same to the said Radhakrishnan. Due to some clash between the said Radhakrishnan and one Rajalingam and others, the vehicles of the petitioners have been damaged and the same have been handed over to Srivilliputhur Town Police Station by Pudhya Tamilagam party.

¶29

3.According to the petitioners, the said Pudhya Tamilagam party organizer has taken away the R.C.books originals of the above said vehicles. In this regard, a written complaint has also been submitted to the 2^nd respondent and a case in Crime No.212 of 2014 has also been registered. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the 1^st respondent for issuance of duplicate R.C.books for the above said vehicles. However, the 1^st respondent asked the petitioners to submit a non traceable certificate along with the copy of the FIR. Accordingly, the petitioners approached the 2^nd respondent for getting necessary certificate. As no action has been taken by the 2^nd respondent, the petitioners is before this Court for the above said relief.

¶30

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioners will have to apply for duplicate R.C. Books for the above said vehicles along with necessary documents in Form 26. Since the petitioners have not submitted any application before the respondents, the respondent is unable to take action for issuance of duplicate R.C.books for the said vehicles.

¶31

5.Taking note of the submission made on either side, the petitioners are directed to make an application in Form 26 along with the necessary documents to enable the 1^st respondent for issuance of duplicate R.C.books. On such being application made, the 2^nd respondent is directed to issue duplicate R.C. books for the vehicles bearing registration Nos.TN-67/AR-8958 (TATA ACE) and TN-67/AW 3169 (TATA ACE) within a period of four weeks from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ date of receipt of the application.

¶32

¶33

6.The Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Assistant Registrar(Per.Admn)

¶36

/True Copy/

¶37

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶38

¶39

1.The Assistant Registering Authority, The Regional Transport Office,

¶40

Sivakasi,

¶41

Virudhunagar District.

¶42

2.The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputhur Town Police Station, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

¶43

+2ccs to M/s.K.Mahalakshmi, Advocate, SR.Nos.24998 and 24997 +2ccs to The Special Government Pleader, SR.Nos.24842 and 24838

¶44

nbj

¶45

RL/7c – 16/6/2015

¶46

WP(MD)No.14730 and 14732 of 2014

¶47

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

A.Mariselvam v. the Assistant Registering

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Mariselvam v. the Assistant Registering

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

Manikanth, Vs the Director of School

M.Anandaraj, Vs the Director of Elementary

M. Mangalam Vs the Director of Elementary

K. Indumathi, Vs the Divisional Railway

C.S. Ebinesar, Vs the Registrar

Naveeni Devi Vs the District Elementary