Allowed

V.Krishnamoorthy, v. the Regional Transport

Madras HC5 Jun 2018WP(MD)/11436/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the seizure of a mini bus on grounds of unauthorized route operation. The court directed the immediate or one-week return of the vehicle while requiring an undertaking for future inquiry compliance.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to return the seized mini bus within one week subject to an undertaking not to alienate the vehicle.

V.Krishnamoorthy, Vs the Regional Transport — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.06.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶3

W.P(MD)No.11436 of 2018

¶4

V.Krishnamoorthy : Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The Regional Transport Officer, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District.

¶7

: Respondent

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to release the petitioner's Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN-74-Y-1258 and consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.05.2018.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Velavadhas For Respondent : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi Special Government Pleader

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to release the petitioner's Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN-74-Y-1258 and consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.05.2018.

¶12

Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of the respondent, would vehemently oppose the release of Mini Bus on the ground that the petitioner has wilfully violated the permit conditions.

¶13

The Mini Bus belonging to the petitioner was seized by the respondent on the ground that it was plying on an unauthorized route. The act of seizure cannot be faulted. But, then the question is whether it should be released or not. No purpose will be served in continuing to keep the said Mini Bus in the custody of the respondent, since the vehicle would only lose its value by exposure in open area. That apart, this Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the parts of such detained buses go missing. Therefore, the respondent is directed to return the Mini Bus to the petitioner immediately, in any event, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

The petitioner has to file an undertaking affidavit before https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the respondent offering to extend full co-operation with the enquiry that may be initiated by the respondent. The petitioner shall not

¶15

¶16

alienate the vehicle till the conclusion of the enquiry. The petitioner shall also undertake not to violate the permit conditions in future. If the permit conditions are again violated, it would be open to the respondent to seize the vehicle in that event.

¶17

The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶19

/True Copy/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

To The Regional Transport Officer, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District.

¶22

+1CC to Mr.H.VELAVADHAS, Advocate, SR.No.66774

¶23

W.P(MD)No.11436 of 2018 05.06.2018

¶24

RSB

¶25

VE/SKN RSK/SAR 3/06.06.2018/2P/3C

¶26

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

V.Krishnamoorthy, v. the Regional Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Krishnamoorthy, v. the Regional Transport

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

Ayyanar Stores Vs the Appellate Deputy

A.Chellan, Vs the Regional Transport Officer

S.G.Sathiya Bino Vs the Regional Transport Officer

S.Gunaseelan, Vs the Union of India

K.Karthick, Vs the District Collector

Tvl.S.R.v.S.Kalikiraj Chettiar Vs the Commissioner of