Allowed

S.Balavignesh v. The Motor Vehicles Inspector

Madras HC7 Jan 2016WP/758/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking release of a seized stage carriage. It directed Respondents to release the bus upon verification of documents and filing of an undertaking, while reserving the right to penalize permit violations.

What did the court decide?

Directed to release the seized bus bearing No. TN-29/AS-9955 forthwith on filing of an affidavit of undertaking after verification of documents.

S.Balavignesh Vs The Motor Vehicles Inspector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :: 07-01-2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.758 OF 2016

¶6

S.Balavignesh ...Petitioner

¶7

-vs1.The Motor Vehicles Inspector, Grade-I, Regional Transport Office, Hosur, Krishnagiri District. 2.The Regional Transport Officer, Hosur, Krishnarigi District. 3.Sub-Inspector of Police, Udhinapalli Police Station, Krishnagiri District. ...Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the third respondent to release the petitioner's stage carriage bus – TN-29/AS-9955, seized by the first respondent, now in the custody of the third respondent, forthwith.

¶9

For petitioner : Mr.K.Hariharan

¶10

For respondents : Mr.R.M.Muthukumar,

¶11

Govt.Advocate.

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Heard Mr.K.Hariharan, learned counsel for the petitiner; and Mr.R.Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate, for the respondent.

¶14

With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal, at the admission stage itself.

¶15

Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, praying for a direction to the third respondent to release the petitioner's stage carriage bus, bearing No.TN-29/AS-9955, seized by the first respondent, and is now in the custody of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the third respondent.

¶16

According to the petitioner, he holds a stage carriage permit, issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Dharmapuri, for the route from Dharmapuri to Athipalli Border, in respect of the bus, bearing No.TN-29/AS-9955; on 05.01.2016, when the said vehicle was on a regular trip, the first respondent checked the vehicle and seized the same, for the alleged violation of permit conditions; and, after seizure, the first respondent left the custody of the vehicle with the third respondent. It is the further case of the petitioner, that he produced all the original rocords pertaining to the vehicle before the second respondent and also submitted a representation, requesting for release of the vehicle, but, till-date, the respondents have not released the vehicle.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, that in case of any violation of the permit conditions by the owner of the vehicle, it is always open for the respondents to take action in accordance with law, but, it is not for them to seize the vehicle. That apart, according to him, after seizure, though the petitioner has made a representation for release of the vehicle along with relevant documents, tilldate, the request of the petitioner has not been considered.

¶18

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents, would submit, that once a vehicle is seized or detained by the authority, the owner of the vehicle has to submit an application under Section 207 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act before the authority concerned, and the said authority, after verification of all necessary documents, will order for release of the said vehicle.

¶19

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, that the petitioner has filed an application for release of the vehicle under Section 207 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act before the authority concerned on 05.01.2016, and, apart from that, the petitioner is also willing to file an affidavit of undertaking, to the effect, that he will not alienate the said vehicle and will also produce the same as and when required by the respondents.

¶20

It is a well settled proposition of law, that for violation of the permit conditions, the authorities concerned are entitled to take action as per the rules and regulations, for cancellation of permit. It is also seen from Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, that on production of relevant documents by the owner of the seized vehicle, it is the duty of the authority concerned, to consider the release of the seized vehicle.

¶21

Under the circumstances, the respondents are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner, bearing

¶22

No.TN-29/AS-9955, forthwith, on filing of an affidavit of undertaking by the petitioner, to the effect that he will produce the vehicle as and when required by the respondents, and will not alienate the same, without prior permission from the respondents; however, after verification of all the relevant documents produced by the petitioner. As far as violation of permit is concerned, it is open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶23

Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No

¶24

costs.

¶25

sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Cs-III)
/TRUE COPY/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
dixit
To
1.The Motor Vehicles Inspector, Grade-I,
Regional Transport Office,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
2.The Regional Transport Officer,
Hosur, Krishnarigi District.
3.Sub-Inspector of Police,
Udhinapalli Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
+1 CC to MR.K.Hariharan Advocate. SR.NO. 1321
+1 CC to Govt.Pleader. SR.NO. 1385

¶26

W.P.No.758 OF 2016

¶27

CO-VD JD 08/01/2016

¶28

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

S.Balavignesh v. The Motor Vehicles Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Balavignesh v. The Motor Vehicles Inspector

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

N.Velu Vs The Regional Transport Officer

V.Kumar Vs The Regional Transport Officer

S.P.Annamalai Vs The State Transport Authority

S.v.Ramaswami Vs The Commissioner

M/s.Maxcell Distributors, Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

R.Vijayakumar Vs The Regional Transport Officer