Disposed

P.Rajaram Reddy v. the Transport Commissioner

Madras HC6 Aug 2025WP/27578/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vehicle owner alleged his Innova Crysta was fraudulently transferred by one respondent to another despite his complaints to police and transport authorities. Without examining merits, the Madras High Court directed the RTO Chengalpattu to consider his representation dated 07.06.2025 within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 5th respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 07.06.2025 and pass orders within eight weeks; no costs.

P.Rajaram Reddy Vs the Transport Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP No. 27578 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06-08-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA

¶6

WP No. 27578 of 2025

¶7

P.Rajaram Reddy S/o Ponnusamy Reddy 306, 3rd Floor, Casa Grand, Monte Carlo Apartments, Mount Road, Little Mount, Saidapet, Chennai- 600 015

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The Transport Commissioner Ezhilagam, PWD Estate, Chepauk Triplicane, Chennai- 600 005. 2.The Commissioner of Police Office of the Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, No.132, E.V.K. Sampath Road, Vepery, Periyamet, Chennai- 600 007.

¶11

3.The Regional Transport Officer Regional Transport Office- Chennai West No. 1, Bharathidasan Colony, K.K. Nagar, Chennai- 600 078.

¶12

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

WP No. 27578 of 2025

¶14

4.The Regional Transport Officer Regional Transport Office- Thirukazhukundram Sekkiyarkulam, Teachers Nagar, Chengalpattu District- 603 109.

¶15

5.The Regional Transport Officer Regional Transport Office- Chengalpattu Chengalpattu- 603 002.

¶16

6.K.R. Karthick

¶17

No 6, 4th Street, R.R. Colony, Ashok Nagar, Chennai- 600 083.

¶18

7.N. Baskar S/o Nataraj, No. 121, Pada Salai, Erumbulicherry, Thirukazhukundram- 603 109.

¶19

Respondent(s)

¶20

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to consider the representation dated 07.06.2025 sent by the petitioner and further direct the respondents 1 to 5 to recover the vehicle and transfer the same to the petitioner within a period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶21

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Lenin Samuel

¶22

For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Manoharan, AGP for R1,R3 to R5 Mr.Subbiah, GA (Crl.Side) for R2

¶23

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

WP No. 27578 of 2025

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The above writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,

¶27

directing the respondents 1 to 5, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.06.2025, and for further direction to recover the vehicle- Innova Crysta and

¶28

transfer the same to the petitioner, within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶29

The petitioner states that he is the owner of the vehicle- Innova Crysta

¶30

24V BS IV, bearing Registration No. TN09CM7070, Engine No. 2GDA174005 having purchased the same under loan from Karur Vysya Bank. The petitioner states that the said vehicle was registered in his name on 06.03.2018. The

¶31

petitioner further states that he repaid the entire loan on 03.11.2024, and also received loan closure letter on 18.06.2025, from the aforesaid bank. Whileso,

¶32

the petitioner came to understand that the 6th respondent had fraudulently transferred the vehicle to the 7th respondent. The petitioner therefore submitted a complaint on 17.04.2023, to the 2nd respondent regarding the fraud committed by the 6th respondent, with a further request to recover the petitioner's vehicle.

¶33

The petitioner also submitted a objection letter on 16.05.2023, to the RTO, Thirukazhukundram (4th respondent herein) complaining about the illegal transfer of the petitioner's vehicle. The 4th respondent conducted an enquiry and

¶34

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

WP No. 27578 of 2025

¶36

thereafter there was no progress. The petitioner thereafter submitted a letter to

¶37

the 3rd respondent on 25.09.2024, regarding the languid progress of the enquiry.

¶38

The petitioner thereafter sent another representation on 07.06.2025, however there was no response. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file the above

¶39

writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

¶40

Under the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the

¶41

merits of the matter, a direction is issued to the 5th respondent, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.06.2025, and pass orders on merit and in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks, from the date of receipt

¶42

of a copy of this order.

¶43

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order

as to costs.

dsn

06-08-2025

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶48

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

WP No. 27578 of 2025

¶50

¶51

1.The Transport Commissioner, Ezhilagam, PWD Estate, Chepauk, Triplicane, Chennai-600 005.

¶52

2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, No 132, E.V.K. Sampath Road, Vepery, Periyamet, Chennai-600 007.

¶53

3.The Regional Transport Officer Regional Transport Office- Chennai West, No. 1, Bharthidasan Colony, K.K. Nagar, Chennai-600 078.

¶54

4.The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office- Thirukazhukundram Sekkiyarkulam, Teachers Nagar, Chengalpattu District-603 109.

¶55

5.The Regional Transport Officer Regional Transport Office-Chengalpattu Chengalpattu-603 002.

¶56

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 27578 of 2025

N.MALA J.

dsn

WP No. 27578 of 2025

¶61

06-08-2025

¶62

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.Rajaram Reddy v. the Transport Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Rajaram Reddy v. the Transport Commissioner

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

Mr.R.Palanichamy Vs the Managing Director

Mr.R.Palanichamy Vs the Managing Director

Venkatakrishnan Vs Director of Municipal Administration

P.R.Chandra Mogan Vs the State Information Officer

S.R.Nagar Therkku Kudiyirupupoor Nala Sangam Vs the Director

R.Venkatesa Perumal Vs the Principal Secretary to Government