Allowed

R.Rajasekar v. the Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC13 Dec 2018WP(MD)/24606/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition directing a Regional Transport Officer to release a seized Mini Bus. The Court held that detaining the vehicle served no further purpose and ordered its immediate return subject to ownership proof and participation in inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release the seized Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN75T7341 forthwith subject to evidence of ownership and participation in enquiry.

R.Rajasekar Vs the Regional Transport Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.12.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.24606 of 2018

R.Rajasekar

... Petitioner

The Regional Transport Officer, Marthandam, Kannyakumari District. ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to release my vehicle Mini Bus in bearing Registration to release my vehicle Mini Bus in bearing Registration No.TN75T 7341 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Bebin Jose For Respondent : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar Additional Government Pleader

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner's Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN 75 T 7341 was seized by the authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, on the ground that it was plying on the unauthorized route. The authority has also issued the vehicle inspection record. I am of the view that by detaining the vehicle and kept it in the open place, the vehicle will only be losing its value and no further purpose will be served. In all such cases, this Court directs the return of the vehicle to the owner subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to release the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN75 T 7341 to the petitioner forthwith subject to the following conditions:

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

iii)The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ question till the disposal of the proceedings before the authority concerned;

¶18

¶19

iv)The petitioner is also directed to participate in the enquiry to be conducted by the respondent, if any.

¶20

2.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶25

¶26

The Regional Transport Officer, Marthandam, Kannyakumari District.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.J.Bebin Jose Advocate in SR.No.100061 +1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.100702

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.24606 of 2018 13.12.2018

¶29

PNN

¶30

SPSKN SAR3 14.12.2018 2P 4C

¶31

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

R.Rajasekar v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Rajasekar 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

T.Rajarajan, Vs the Appellate Authority /

M.Karuppaiah Sadachi, Vs the Govt. of Tamil Nadu

B.Srinivasan Vs the Chief Educational Officer

T.Suseela, Junior Inspector Vs the Director / Commissioner

R.Vinoth, S/O.Ramaiya, Vs the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran

D.Sivasu, Vs the Director of Rural