Allowed

N.Mercy, v. the Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC4 Jun 2018WP(MD)/11696/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking release of a seized mini bus detained for unauthorized routing, the Madurai Bench directed the respondent to return the vehicle within one week while requiring the petitioner to file an undertaking against future violations and offers of cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Return of the Mini Bus bearing Registration No. TN-74-Y-2822 immediately or within one week of receipt of the order.

N.Mercy, Vs the Regional Transport Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.06.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶3

W.P(MD)No.11696 of 2018

¶4

N.Mercy : Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The Regional Transport Officer, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District.

¶7

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-2822 forthwith.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.A.C.Asaithambi For Respondent : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan,

¶9

Additional 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 her Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN74-Y-2822 forthwith.

¶12

Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional 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 willfully 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 the respondent offering to extend full co-operation with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ enquiry that may be initiated by the respondent. The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle till the conclusion of the enquiry. The petitioner shall also undertake not to violate the permit

¶15

¶16

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 (AE)

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

¶21

The Regional Transport Officer, Marthandam,

¶22

Kanyakumari District.

¶23

+1cc to Mr.A.C.ASAITHAMBI, Advocate, SR.No. 66619

¶24

W.P(MD)No.11696 of 2018 04.06.2018

¶25

SML

¶26

KK/SKN RSK/SAR-1/04.06.2018/2P-3C

¶27

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

N.Mercy, v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Mercy, v. the Regional Transport Officer

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.Balan Vs the Commissioner

M/S. Maria Homoeopathic Vs the Union of India Rep. by

R.Balaji, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Ayyanar Stores Vs the Appellate Deputy

A.Chellan, Vs the Regional Transport Officer

S.G.Sathiya Bino Vs the Regional Transport Officer