K.Syed Abuthakir Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 12.6.2025 in Letter No. B3 / 14717 / 2025 passed by 1st respondent and quash the same and for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to remove the black list entry of petitioners vehicle bearing No TN19AQ - 5096 and pass orders.

¶16

For Petitioner: Mr. S.Gurumoorthythy For Respondents: Mr.C.Prabakaran, Govt. Counsel – R1 Mr.Durai Gunasekaran, Govt. Counsel (Crl.Side) – R2 Mr.A.Narayanan – R3

¶17

__________ Page1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 33501 of 2025

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner challenges the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the first respondent, whereby the subject vehicle bearing Registration No. TN19 AQ 5096 was blacklisted to prevent its further misuse.

¶22

The petitioner contends that the vehicle originally belonged to the third respondent and that he purchased it for valuable consideration through one Ramakrishnan of the Ambattur Branch of the Pre-owned Car Kun BMW Showroom. According to the petitioner, he paid the entire sale consideration, whereupon the original documents relating to the vehicle were handed over to him. The Registration Certificate was also transferred in his name. Thereafter, the third respondent lodged a complaint alleging that the vehicle had been stolen, pursuant to which the police registered FIR in Crime No.357 of 2025 for offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(2) and 335(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery. The investigation is still pending. Subsequently, the third respondent also filed a complaint seeking cancellation of the Registration Certificate standing in the petitioner’s name. After hearing the parties, the first respondent passed the impugned order.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

¶24

__________ Page2 of 6

¶25

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

¶26

WP No. 33501 of 2025

¶27

The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that one Mr. Murali Krishna sent him a WhatsApp message enclosing certain documents purportedly relating to the transfer of ownership of the vehicle and requested him

¶28

to hand over the original keys. Thereafter, Murali Krishna asked the third respondent to verify the documents and hand over the keys. Believing the representation, the third respondent signed certain blank papers and handed over the duplicate keys. It is further stated that Murali Krishna obtained a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from him and also collected his bank account details and GST number. According to the third respondent, after receiving the entire sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/-, Murali Krishna sold the vehicle to the petitioner and handed over all the original documents relating to the vehicle.

¶29

Without expressing any opinion on the rival allegations as to whether the third respondent was cheated by Murali Krishna and the petitioner, the scope of the present writ petition is confined to the validity of the order passed by the first respondent blacklisting the vehicle.

¶30

The learned Government Counsel is unable to point out any statutory provision conferring power on the first respondent to issue an order blacklisting the vehicle. Merely because a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner and another, and the investigation is pending, the first respondent cannot, in the absence of statutory authority, blacklist the vehicle to prevent its

¶31

__________ Page3 of 6

¶32

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

¶33

WP No. 33501 of 2025

¶34

further alienation. In the absence of any source of power under the statute, the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.

¶35

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner undertakes not to alienate or create any third-party interest in the subject vehicle until the investigation is completed. The said undertaking is placed on record.

¶36

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the first respondent is set aside. It is, however, made clear that the investigating agency shall proceed with the investigation in Crime No.357 of 2025 independently, on the basis of the materials available on record, and shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶37

09-07-2026

¶38

Index: Yes/No

¶39

Neutral Citation: Yes/No ak

¶40

__________ Page4 of 6

¶41

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

¶42

WP No. 33501 of 2025