Allowed

G.Sundar Raj v. the Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC22 Apr 2019WP(MD)/8729/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directed the Respondent RTO to release seized Mini Bus to the Petitioner upon execution of an undertaking affidavit undertaking strict adherence to permit conditions.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent to return Mini Bus bearing Registration No. TN-74-Y-1695 upon Petitioner executing an undertaking affidavit within conditions.

G.Sundar Raj Vs the Regional Transport Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

G.Sundar Raj

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.04.2019 CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.8729 of 2019

¶6

G.Sundar Raj ... Petitioner /Vs./ The Regional Transport Officer, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondent

¶7

Prayer: Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to release the petitioner's Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN 74 Y 1695 and TN 63E 4140 forthwith.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.A.C.Asaithambi For Respondent : Mr.M.Jeyakumar Additional Government Pleader

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The instant writ petition has been filed for a Writ of Mandamus, seeking for a direction to the respondent to release the petitioner's Mini Buses bearing Registration No. TN 74 Y 1695 and TN 63E 4140.

¶11

Heard Mr.A.C.Asaithambi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and M.Jeyakumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

¶12

It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid buses were seized by the respondent for alleged permit violations committed by the petitioner on 05.04.2019 and 06.04.2019 respectively.

¶13

According to the petitioner, he has not committed any permit violations, but, the respondent has seized the vehicles based on false complaints given by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. According to the petitioner, immediately after the seizure of the vehicles, he gave a representation on 08.04.2019 to the respondent seeking for release of vehicles.

¶14

Today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before this Court that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, one of the Mini Buses namely the Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN63-E-4140 was returned to the petitioner, whereas the other Mini Bus namely TN74-Y-1695 has not been released to the petitioner.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also placed before this Court the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)

¶16

¶17

No.5385 of 2018 dated 14.03.2018 in an identical matter, wherein this Court directed the respondent to return the vehicle to its owner by imposing certain conditions.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions submits that the petitioner is also willing to abide by the same conditions for return of vehicle.

¶19

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has also not raised any serious objection for grant of a similar order to the petitioner.

¶20

Accordingly, the respondent is directed to return the Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN-74-Y-1695 to the petitioner subject to the petitioner executing an affidavit of undertaking in the following manner:

¶21

(a) He shall strictly abide by all the permit conditions in future;

¶22

(b) He shall co-operate fully in the proceedings to be initiated by the respondent authority for violating the permit conditions;

¶23

¶24

On complying with the aforesaid undertaking given in the form of an affidavit, the respondent shall return the vehicle namely Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN74-Y-1695 to the petitioner, within a period of one week thereafter.

¶25

With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶28

¶29

The Regional Transport Officer, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. +1cc to Mr.A.C.Asaithambi,Advocate, SR.No.61614 +1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.61769

¶30

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.8729 of 2019 (1/2)

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SP/25.04.2019/ 2P/4C

G.Sundar Raj v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sundar Raj 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

Tvl. Hotel Theni International Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

S.Subash, Vs the Regional Transport

R.Arivuselvam, S/O.a.Ramasamy Vs the Regional Transport

M/S. Crafts India, Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M/S.Aara Silks, Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Glori Bai, Vs the Regional Transport Officer