Disposed

Prithivirajan.M.P v. the Commissioner of Transport

Madras HC15 Feb 2022WP(MD)/617/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition challenging refusal to permanently register an Audi vehicle due to software discrepancies and alleged clerical errors, the Court directed relevant transport officials to facilitate registration within four weeks despite internal departmental faults.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents 3 and 5 to issue permanent registration certificate to petitioner within four weeks.

Prithivirajan.M.P Vs the Commissioner of Transport — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD).No.617 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.02.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P(MD).No.617 of 2022

M.P.Prithivirajan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Transport, O/o.The Commissioner of Transport, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Transport-I, O/o. The Deputy Commissioner of Transport-I, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 3.The Regional Transport Officer (Central), The Regional Transport Office (Central), Industrial Estate, K.Pudur, Madurai Central, Madurai. 4.The State Information Officer, National Information Centre (NIC), Government of India, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Tamil Nadu State Centre, E-Wing, I Floor, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090. 5.The Regional Transport Office, Coimbatore. ...Respondents ( Suo muto impleaded by this Court vide order dated 15.02.2022)

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1, 2 and 4 to remove the hurdle in Vahan-4 software regarding the permanent registration of the petitioner's vehicle, Audi A3 35 TDP BS IV Vehicle, bearing temporary registration No.TN 66 JTR 8272 in the light of the repeated letters of the third https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

1/4

¶13

W.P(MD).No.617 of 2022

¶14

respondent, dated 04.02.2021, 16.02.2021, 16.06.2021 and 30.09.2021 and subsequently to direct the third respondent to issue the permanent registration to the said petitioner's vehicle within a time frame, as fixed by this Court.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Santhana Krishnan For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader For R4 : M/s.L.Victoria Gowri Assistant Solicitor General of India

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶18

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased Audi A3 35 TDP BS IV from a dealer in Coimbatore in the year 2017 and at the time of purchase of vehicle, the petitioner had obtained a temporary registration under Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. The registration was valid for a period of one year, till 09.01.2018. The petitioner, however, failed to take steps to get the permanent registration within a period of one year. Later, the petitioner approached the third respondent and offered to pay a late payment fee of Rs.3,67,547/- towards the registration of the vehicle.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the petitioner offering and paying the aforesaid amount, the respondents have not given a permanent registration certificate for the vehicle to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits in the temporary registration certificate the name of the vehicle has been wrongly typed as Volkswagen India Private Limited. It is submitted that the vehicle was hypotheticated to HDFC Bank limited in Madurai. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this mistake in the name of the manufacturer can be rectified at the end of the respondents 1 and 2 manually by using a password for issuing permanent registration certificate to the petitioner.

¶20

The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that this is a software issue which has been handled only at the end of the fourth respondent. It is submitted that if appropriate changes are made in the software, certificate will be issued. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent, on instructions, submits that the mistake has arisen at the time of issue of temporary certificate of registration on 11.12.2017, at the end of the fifth respondent, who has been impleaded suo muto today. It is submitted that the fifth https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

2/4

¶22

W.P(MD).No.617 of 2022

¶23

respondent, namely, the Regional Transport Office, Coimbatore, ought to have used vahan 4.0 version which issued the temporary certificate of registration. Instead vahan 1.0 was issued by the fifth respondent. It is submitted that if the temporary certificate of registration was issued in vahan 4.0, the permanent certificate of registration could have been granted by the third respondent.

¶24

The issue arising out of mistake whether by the third respondent or by the fifth respondent is an internal matter of the Regional Transport Department. A purchase of a vehicle cannot be made to run from pillar to post for getting a permanent registration if such purchaser has paid the amount and cured the defect. All internal matter has to be sorted out between the official respondents herein.

¶25

Considering the same, I direct the respondents 3 and 5 to take appropriate steps to facilitate issue of permanent registration certificate to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs.

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

¶28

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.

¶29

¶30

1.The Commissioner of Transport, O/o.The Commissioner of Transport, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶31

2.The Deputy Commissioner of Transport-I, O/o. The Deputy Commissioner of Transport-I, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Chennai-600 005.

¶32

3/4

¶33

W.P(MD).No.617 of 2022

¶34

3.The Regional Transport Officer (Central), The Regional Transport Office (Central), Industrial Estate, K.Pudur, Madurai Central, Madurai. 4.The State Information Officer, National Information Centre (NIC), Government of India, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Tamil Nadu State Centre, E-Wing, I Floor, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090. 5 The Regional Transport officer, Coimbatore. +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-6796[F] dated 17/02/2022 )

¶35

W.P(MD).No.617 of 2022 15.02.2022

¶36

MK(05.03.2022) 4P 7C

¶37

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

¶38

4/4

Prithivirajan.M.P v. the Commissioner of Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prithivirajan.M.P v. the Commissioner of 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

Iyem Perumal.S Vs the Commissioner

Govindaraj Chettiyar I Vs the Commissioner

Rathinam.R Vs the Joint Commissioner

M/s.Rudveda Syndicates Vs The Commissioner of Customs

Velmurugan D.S Vs the District Collector (Cum)

Jakkammal .M Vs the Regional Transport Authority