Allowed

Gangatharan v. the Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC19 Jun 2018WP(MD)/12826/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed the petitioner's writ petition against the Respondent, directing immediate release of the seized Mini Bus within one week due to depreciation risks and missing parts, while imposing conditions for future enquiry cooperation and permit compliance.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to return the Mini Bus to the petitioner within one week.

Gangatharan Vs the Regional Transport Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.06.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶4

W.P(MD)No.12826 of 2018

¶5

Gangatharan : Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Regional Transport Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶8

: 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 respondent to release the petitioner's Mini Bus bearing a Registration No.TN-21-U-0837 and consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.06.2018.

¶10

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

¶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 his Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN-21U-0837, by considering his representation dated 08.06.2018.

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

¶16

The petitioner has to file an undertaking affidavit before the respondent offering to extend full co-operation with the 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 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

/True copy/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

The Regional Transport Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶23

+1cc to Mr.H.VELAVADHAS, Advocate, SR.No. 68713 +1cc to M/s.Special Government Pleader,SR.No. 68767

¶24

W.P(MD)No.12826 of 2018 Dated: 19.06.2018

¶25

SML

¶26

KK/SKN RSK/SAR-4/20.06.2018/2P-4C

¶27

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

Gangatharan v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangatharan 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

Praveen, S/O.Ponbadi, Vs the Assistant General Manager

M.Ramuthai Vs the District Collector

Tvl.Vasantham Departmental and Vs the Commissioner of Commercial

N.Balasubramanian, Vs the District Collector

M/S.K.S.a.Velladurai Traders Vs the State Tax Officer

M/S.Southern Roadways Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Land