Allowed

S.Rajendiraprasath, v. the Regional Transport

Madras HC2 Nov 2018WP(MD)/22389/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to release the Petitioner's seized mini bus within seven days, subject to conditions including proof of ownership, security deposit, and an undertaking to comply with permit rules.

What did the court decide?

Directed release of the vehicle within seven days subject to conditions of depositing security (if recurring violation) and undertaking to comply with permit conditions.

S.Rajendiraprasath, Vs the Regional Transport — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.11.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶6

W.P(MD)No.22389 of 2018

S.Rajendiraprasath

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The Regional Transport Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. .. Respondent

¶11

Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to release the petitioner's mini bus bearing registration No.TN-74-E-7206, based on his representation dated 29.10.2018.

¶12

For petitioner : Mr.H.Velavadhas For respondent : Mr.R.Murugan, Addl. Government Pleader

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner has come up 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-74-E-7206 within a stipulated time, based on his representation dated 29.10.2018.

¶15

According to the petitioner, on 27.10.2018 the Inspector of Police, Kottar, seized the vehicle of the petitioner stating that the vehicle has been used in violation of the permit conditions and the said Inspector of Police has, subsequently, handed over the vehicle to the respondent herein. On 29.10.2018, the petitioner has approached the respondent and given a representation for release of the vehicle. As there was no response to the same, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.

¶16

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

¶17

Mr.R.Murugan, learned Additional Government Pleader, who

¶18

¶19

takes notice on behalf of the respondent, would vehemently oppose to release the vehicle stating that the petitioner has willfully violated the permit conditions.

¶20

In any event, as the vehicle is under the custody of the respondent having been seized on 27.10.2018 and considering the fact that if the same is allowed to be kept idle by exposing to sun and rain, it would certainly diminish its value, this Court is of the view that the vehicle in question can be directed to be released by imposing certain conditions pending proceedings before the respondent.

¶21

Accordingly, the respondent is directed to release the

¶22

vehicle in question to the petitioner within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order subject to the following conditions:

¶23

(i) The petitioner shall produce documents before the respondent to establish the ownership of the vehicle in question;

¶24

(ii) If this is the first time such violation has been made, the petitioner need not deposit any amount. If this is not the first time, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) before the respondent;

¶25

(iii) The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will not violate the permit conditions in future and shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the respondent;

¶26

(iv) On doing so, the vehicle in question shall be returned to the petitioner;

¶27

(v) The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle in question till the disposal of the proceedings before the authority concerned;

¶28

(vi) The respondent is directed to complete the enquiry within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and

¶29

(vii) The petitioner is also directed to cooperate in the enquiry to be conducted by the respondent.

¶30

(viii) If the petitioner opts and respondent consider for compounding, the respondent is directed to deduct the compounding fee from the deposited amount and return balance amount to the petitioner. If the petitioner succeeds in his contest, the respondent is directed to refund the entire deposited

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ amount immediately after adjudication.”

¶32

¶33

This Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶34

/True Copy/

¶35

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶36

gcg To 1.The Regional Transport Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶37

+1cc to Mr.H.Velavadas, Advocate in SR No.94117

¶38

W.P(MD)No.22389 of 2018

¶39

NM /RP/SAR III/02.11.18/3P/3C.

¶40

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

S.Rajendiraprasath, v. the Regional Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Rajendiraprasath, v. the Regional Transport

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.Anbu Motors Vs the Principal Chief

Muthukumar Vs the Regional Transport

M/S.Valli Textile Mills, Vs Joint Secretary to the

K.Soundarapandian, Vs the Regional Transport

S.Yesudhas, Vs the Regional Transport Officer

P.Sivasubramanian, Driver, Vs the Licensing Authority