Allowed

Tmt.T.Deva Anugragha v. the Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC14 Jun 2018WP(MD)/12661/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the continued custody of her seized Mini Bus. The court directed the respondent to return the vehicle within one week, conditioning release on the filing of an undertaking affidavit and assurance against future violations.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release the Mini Bus within one week upon filing of an undertaking affidavit.

Tmt.T.Deva Anugragha Vs the Regional Transport Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.06.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶4

W.P(MD)No.12661 of 2018

T.Deva Anugraha

: Petitioner

Vs.

The Regional Transport Officer, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. : Respondent

¶9

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle Mini Bus in bearing Registration No.TN33N-0090, within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Micheal Heldon Kumar For Respondent : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, Special Government Advocate

¶11

ORDER

¶12

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.TN33N-0090, within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶13

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 willfully violated the permit conditions.

¶14

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.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The petitioner has to file an undertaking affidavit before the respondent offering to extend full co-operation with the enquiry

¶16

¶17

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 conditions in future. If the permit conditions are again violated, it would be open to the respondent to seize the vehicle in that event.

¶18

The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar (ADI) /True Copy/

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

The Regional Transport Officer, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District.

¶24

+1CC to Mr.S.Micheal Heldonkumar Advocate in SR.No.68159, +1CC to Special Government Pleader in SR.No.68365.

¶25

ARUL

¶26

DS/SKN-RSK/SAR-1 :14.06.2018: 2P/4C

¶27

Order made in W.P(MD)No.12661 of 2018 Dated: 14.06.2018

¶28

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

Tmt.T.Deva Anugragha v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tmt.T.Deva Anugragha 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

M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. Vs the Commissioner of Customs

M/S. Industrial Mineral Vs the Commissioner of Customs

M/S.Industrial Mineral Vs the Commissioner of Customs

V.Neethivelan Vs the District Collector

P.Rajalingam Vs the District Collector

P.Valayapathi, Vs the Chief Information