Dismissed

M.Senthil Kumar, v. The Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC14 Feb 2023WP/14358/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge Writ Court ordered the dismissal of a writ petition seeking mandamus to release hypothecated lorries from a finance company. The court observed inconsistencies in the petitioner's claims regarding the number of vehicles taken and noted that the petitioner had initially consented to the transaction, concluding he lacked clean hands for judicial intervention.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no direction issued to release lorries; petitioner directed to work out remedy in civil manner.

M.Senthil Kumar, Vs The Regional Transport Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Writ Petition No.14358 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 14/2/2023

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.14358 of 2015

¶7

a n d

¶8

M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶9

M. Senthil Kumar ... Petitioner

¶10

¶11

The Regional Transport Officer Office of the Regional Transport Officer Erode East.

¶12

The Regional Transport Officer Office of the Regional Transport Officer Sivagangai District.

¶13

The Inspector of Police Perundurai Police Station Erode District.

¶14

Sri Sai Saravana Finance rep. By its Managing Partner 378 Bhavani Road, Perunthurai Erode 638 052.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶17

praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the third

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

Page No:1/6

¶20

Writ Petition No.14358 of 2015

¶21

respondent to release the petitioner's lorries bearing vehicle Registratin Nos.TN-33-Z-028 which is under the control Erode Regional Transport Office Registration (2) TDQ-9735, which is under control of Sivagangai Regional Transport Office Registration (3). TDY 6176 which is under control of Sivagangai Regional Transport Office Registration, from the fourth respondent, and handover to the petitioner, considering the complaint dated 16/1/2015.

¶22

For Petitioner ... Mr.P.Saravanan For respondents ... Mrs.R.Anitha Special Government Pleader for R.R.1 to 3. Mr.N.Damodaran for R.4.

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This writ petition has been filed to direct the third respondent to release the petitioner's lorries, bearing Registration Nos.TN-33-Z-028 TDQ9735 and TDY 6176 from the fourth respondent, and handover the same to the petitioner, considering the complaint dated 16/1/2015.

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Page No:2/6

¶28

Writ Petition No.14358 of 2015

¶29

It is the case of the writ petitioner that eventhough he has repaid the

¶30

entire loan amount to the fourth respondent, he has not given No Objection Certificate to cancel the hypothecation to the petitioner. When the matter stood thus, fourth respondent has taken the aforementioned vehicles. Hence the petitioner has given a complaint, dated 16/1/2015. Since the same has not been considered so far, the petitioner has come forward with the instant writ petition praying for the relief as stated therein.

¶31

In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth rspondent, it is stated that on 15/3/2014, the petitioner had addressed a letter to the Managing Partner of Sri Ravana Finance stating that he is surrendering two of his lorries, bearing Registration Nos.TDQ-9735 and TN-33-Z-0280, on his own accord and sought fifteen days time to handover the original Registration Certificates, as the petitioner had borrowed loan. But the petitioner had given a false complaint on 18/7/2014, to the Superintendent of Police, Erode, as if some third parties had threatened the petitioner and forcefully abducted four lorries belonging to the petitioner.

¶32

Heard Mr.P.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶33

Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:3/6

¶35

Writ Petition No.14358 of 2015

¶36

3 and Mr.N.Damodaran, learned counsel for the fourth respondent. Perused the materials available on record.

¶37

It appears that the petitioner himself has consented for taking the

¶38

lorries. In the initial stage, the petitioner has stated that three lorries have

¶39

been forcefully taken away by the fourth respondent, whereas in the complaint, the petitioner has stated that four of the lorries were taken by the fourth respondent. This itself shows that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. In such a situation, this Court is of the considered view that no direction need be issued to the third respondent to return of the lorries.

¶40

In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. Petitioner is directed to work out his remedy in the manner known to law, with regard to his stand that he has repaid the entire loan amount. No costs. Consequently,

¶41

the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶42

14/2/2023

¶43

Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order mvs.

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

Page No:4/6

¶46

Writ Petition No.14358 of 2015

¶47

¶48

The Regional Transport Officer Office of the Regional Transport Officer Erode East.

¶49

The Regional Transport Officer

¶50

Office of the Regional Transport Officer Sivagangai District.

¶51

The Inspector of Police

¶52

Perundurai Police Station Erode District.

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:5/6

¶54

Writ Petition No.14358 of 2015

¶55

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J

¶56

mvs.

¶57

W.P.No.14358 of 2015

¶58

14/2/2023

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:6/6

M.Senthil Kumar, v. The Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Senthil Kumar, 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

A.Paranjothi Vs The Commissioner

E.S.Ramachandran Vs the Commissioner

The President Vs TamilNadu Wakf Board

S.Rajammal Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

V.Kumaravelan and Another Vs the Commissioner

K.v.Jayaraman Vs The Secretary