Disposed

Divyamani v. The Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC17 Feb 2021WP(MD)/2951/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition regarding a vehicle sale where the buyer failed to effect a name change in the R.C. Book due to an accident. The Court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation after giving notice to the second respondent within twelve weeks without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to consider petitioner's representation after giving notice to second respondent within twelve weeks.

Divyamani Vs The Regional Transport Officer — Madras HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P(MD)No.2951 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.02.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.2951 of 2021

Divyamani

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Regional Transport Officer, O/o. Regional Transport Office, Thanthondrimalai,

¶11

Karur District.

¶12

2.Sivakumar ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.09.2020.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.Mathiyalagan.R For Respondents : Mrs.M.Rajeswari, Government Advocate for R1

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent. Considering the nature of relief to be granted in this writ petition, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with.

¶17

2.The petitioner states that he sold the petition mentioned vehicle to the second respondent way back on 13.03.2017. His specific allegation is that the second respondent contrary to the assurance to him did not effect name change in the R.C. Book. It also appears that the vehicle subsequently got involved in an accident. The petitioner only came to know about these developments only when he received summon from the Tribunal. The petitioner has now given representation to the first respondent. The first respondent shall pass orders on the said representation given by the petitioner after giving notice to the second

¶18

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

¶19

1/2

¶20

W.P(MD)No.2951 of 2021

¶21

respondent. This exercise will be completed by the first respondent within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter. Nothing stated in this order will operate to the prejudice to the second respondent.

¶22

3.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶23

ias

¶24

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.

¶25

To:

¶26

The Regional Transport Officer, O/o. Regional Transport Officer, Thanthondrimalai, Karur District.

¶27

+1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-5908[F] dated 18/02/2021 )

¶28

W.P(MD)No.2951 of 2021 17.02.2021

¶29

KM (22.02.2021) 2P 3C

¶30

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

¶31

2/2

Divyamani v. The Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divyamani v. The Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesan Vs the District Collector

M/s.Thangaraaj General Store Vs the Joint Commissioner (St)

M/S.Sri Venkateshwara Paper Boards Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Punniyamoorthy Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Nithiyaraj. K Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Mangaleshwarn @Mohamed Bilai Vs the District Collector