Dismissed a writ petition filed on mere apprehension regarding alteration of engine and chassis numbers of a vehicle. The court held the petitioner lacked locus standi to direct state authorities to act against the vehicle owner (petitioner's father's transferee).
Petitioner directed to be dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.06.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
W.P.(MD)No.11851 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)No.10785 of 2018
K.Karthick : Petitioner
Vs. 1.The District Collector/ Regional Transport Authority, Trichy District, Trichy.
2.The Regional Transport Officer, Srirangam, Trichy.
3.The Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade – I, Thuraiyur, Trichy District.
4.R.Ganesan : Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the fourth respondent for his illegal act of changing the Engine and Chassis number of the Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN-72-N-0239.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents 1to3 : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition is for a direction directing the first and second respondents to take action against the fourth respondent for his illegal act of changing the Engine and Chassis numbers of the Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN-72-N-0239.
2
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-I)
/True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The District Collector/
Trichy District.
+1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.67144.
Order made in W.P.(MD)No.11851 of 2018 Dated: 05.06.2018
RAM/SV MMS/SAR 1/11.06.2018/2P/6C
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Writ Petition can be maintained based on mere apprehension that an individual has altered vehicle identifiers after acquisition.
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to seek action against a third-party acquirer for alleged illegalities concerning a vehicle transferred from the petitioner's father.
K.Karthick
District Collector/Regional Transport Authority, Trichy District
Regional Transport Officer, Srirangam, Trichy
Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade – I, Thuraiyur, Trichy District
R.Ganesan
M.Govindaraj
Coram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
