Dismissed

The Managing Director, v. the Motor Vehicles Inspector

Madras HC22 Jul 2020WP(MD)/4272/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The incumbent Regional Transport Officer filed a subsequent demand notice after the writ petition concerning vehicle impoundment was filed. As the petitioner did not appear and the challenge relates to a subsequent order, the petition was dismissed with rights reserved. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed leaving open rights to challenge subsequent order with no costs. No vehicle release order issued in this proceeding.

The Managing Director, Vs the Motor… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.4272 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.07.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.4272 of 2020

¶7

The Managing Director, K.P.N.Travels India Limited, No.14, Karunakara Pillai Street, Kosapalayam, Puduchery. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Motor Vehicles Inspector, Grade-I, Enforcement (I/C), Regional Transport Office, Ramanadapuram.

¶8

2.The Inspector of Police, Sathirakudi Police Station,

¶9

Ramnad District.

¶10

3.The Regional Transport Officer,

¶11

Ramnad District, Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents

¶12

(Respondent No.3 impleaded vide order dated 19.08.2019)

¶13

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent to order the release of the petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No.PY-01-BX-9399 which was impounded by the first respondent on 25.01.2020.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Natesan

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.S.Angappan

¶16

Government Advocate

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard Mr.S.Angappan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶19

When the matter was listed on 20.07.2020, there was no representation for the writ petitioner. Even today, none appeared https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for the writ petitioner.

¶20

1/2

¶21

W.P.(MD)No.4272 of 2020

¶22

Today, when the case was taken up for final disposal, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the Regional Transport Officer, Ramanathapuram has issued a demand notice bearing R.No.2417/A2/2020 dated 18.03.2020.

¶23

This writ petition has been filed in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus. The petitioner has to necessarily challenge the proceeding, which was issued subsequent to the filing of this writ petition. Therefore, leaving open the rights of the petitioner to question the said subsequent order dated 18.03.2020, this writ petition is dismissed. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter. No costs.

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶26

¶27

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶28

¶29

1.The Motor Vehicles Inspector, Grade-I, Enforcement (I/C), Regional Transport Office, Ramanadapuram.

¶30

2.The Inspector of Police, Sathirakudi Police Station, Ramnad District.

¶31

3.The Regional Transport Officer, Ramnad District, Ramanathapuram.

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.4272 of 2020 22.07.2020

¶33

SPU(30.07.2020) 2P 4C

¶34

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

¶35

2/2

The Managing Director, v. the Motor Vehicles Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director, v. the Motor Vehicles Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L.Lawrence Maria Anthuvan Vs Srikanth

D.Savithri, Vs Mr.Sandeep Nanduri, I.A.S.

S.Ilavarasi Vs Sate bank of India

P.Rajasekar Vs the Director

E.Ponnusamy Vs The Chief Engineer PWD

G.Manikandan Vs the Commissioner