Allowed

W.Vijaya Shobin, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC21 Aug 2018WP(MD)/18024/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the seizure of his taxi under Article 226. The Court directed the respondent to return the vehicle within a week but required an undertaking to cooperate with an inquiry and comply with permit conditions.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to return the seized vehicle to the petitioner within one week, subject to filing an undertaking affidavit.

W.Vijaya Shobin, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.08.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶4

W.P(MD)No.18024 of 2018

¶5

W.Vijaya Shobin .. Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Regional Transport Officer, Marthandam, 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 Maxi Cab TATA City Ride bearing Registration No.TN-32-F-6433 seized by the respondent on 01.08.2018 to the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Titus For Respondent : Mr.D.Muruganandam, Additional 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 Maxi Cab TATA City Ride bearing Registration No.TN32-F-6433 which was seized by the respondent on 01.08.2018.

¶13

Mr.D.Muruganandham, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of the respondent, would vehemently oppose the release of vehicle on the ground that the petitioner has willfully violated the permit conditions.

¶14

The vehicle belonging to the petitioner was seized by the respondent on the ground that it was plying against the permit conditions. 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 vehicle 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 vehicle 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

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

¶16

¶17

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

This Writ Petition stands allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(W)

¶21

/True Copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶23

¶24

The Regional Transport Officer, Marthandam,

¶25

Kanyakumari District.

¶26

+1CC to Mr.S.Titus, Advocate, SR.No.79401

¶27

W.P(MD)No.18024 of 2018 21.08.2018

¶28

GCG

¶29

ES/SKN/RSK/SAR 1/21.08.2018/2P/3C

¶30

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

W.Vijaya Shobin, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

W.Vijaya Shobin, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

The Inspector of Police, Vs Senthil Murugan @ Senthil

Dr.G.Ganga, W/O.R.Sudar Vs the Special Tahsildar

M/S.Vivek Computers, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

H.Sunil, S/O. Harris, Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Tvl.Sri.Venkkatachalapathy Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Mr. M. Narasimma Bharati Vs the Special District Revenue