Disposed

M.Suresh kumar, v. Addl.Registering Authority and Secretary

Telangana HC14 Jun 2005WP/12412/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the Respondent's refusal to register a vehicle with a gross weight capacity of 45.4 tonnes under the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court did not decide the substantive claim but directed the Respondent to pass appropriate orders expeditiously within three weeks in accordance with the law and relevant notifications, after which the petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Respondent to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's claim regarding vehicle gross weight capacity within three weeks.

M.Suresh kumar, Vs Addl.Registering Authority and… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12412 of 2005

¶7

Between:

¶8

M.Suresh kumar, S/o.Narayana Rao, R/o.45-1-1/6, Muslim Thaticherlapalem,

¶9

Visakhapatnam-16, Visakhapatnam District.

¶10

..... PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Addl. Registering Authority & Secretary,

¶13

Regional Transport Authority, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

¶14

.....RESPONDENT

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not registering the petitioner's Semi-articulated Vehicle bearing Temporary Registration Mark CG POT 1481/05 at the time of issuing permanent Registration Certificate and National Permit in respect of the said vehicle by entering the Gross Vehicle weight to be carried in the said vehicle as 45.4 tonnes (restricted to 44 tonnes) as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and further direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to carry Gross Vehicle Weight of 45.4 tonnes (restricted to 44 tonnes) in the above vehicle as per Category III (ii) of the schedule to the Notification in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by making necessary entries in the Registration Certificate as well as in permit to be issued in respect of the said Vehicle forthwith; and pass such other or further orders as are necessary.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR TRANSPORT

¶17

The Court at the stage of admission made the following:

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not registering the petitioner's Semi-articulated Vehicle bearing Temporary Registration Mark CG POT 1481/05 at the time of issuing permanent Registration Certificate and National Permit in respect of the said vehicle by entering the Gross Vehicle weight to be carried in the said vehicle as 45.4 tonnes (restricted to 44 tonnes) as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and further direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to carry Gross Vehicle Weight of 45.4 tonnes (restricted to 44 tonnes) in the above vehicle as per Category III (ii) of the schedule to the Notification in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by making necessary entries in the registration Certificate as well as in permit to be issued in respect of the said Vehicle.

¶20

2 . According to the petitioner, he is the owner of Semi-articulated goods carriage bearing Temporary Registration Mark referred to earlier. The said vehicle was owned by the petitioner from 02-06-2005. The said vehicle has to be registered and permit has to be obtained from the respondent. As the petitioner intends to increase the capacity of the vehicle for transportation, proposed to replace the 2 Axle Trailer with 3 Axle Trailer so as to carry a maximum of 44 tones though under law entitled to carry 45.2 tonnes as per the schedule to the notification in S.O.728-E dated 18-10-1996. It is stated that in order to have the said effect, the petitioner approached the respondent seeking grant of permission by way of replacement of the trailer. But, as no orders have been passed by the respondent, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

¶21

3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions and also referred to the GO issued by the Central Government in S.O.No.728-E dated 18-10-1996 showing the schedule and also the maximum weight permitted under law by the 2 Axle Trailer and 3 Axle Trailer. Therefore, sought for appropriate directions.

¶22

4 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶23

5. The respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the claim of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law including the notification issued by the Central Government referred to earlier.

¶24

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶25

S.ANANDA REDDY, J

14^th June, 2005

SKM

1. The Additional Registering Authority & Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

¶30

2. Two CCs to the G.P for Transport,

¶31

High Court Buildings, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT). 3. 2 CD copies

M.Suresh kumar, v. Addl.Registering Authority and Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Suresh kumar, v. Addl.Registering Authority and Secretary

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

P.Kausalya Vs The District Collector, Nellore

T.Srinivas Vs Northern Power Distribution Company Limited

O. Venkateswarlu, Vs the Apsrtc, rep. by its Vice Chairman and M.D.

A.Satya Srinivasa Rao, Vs The Commissioner

Md. Nayeemuddin, E-85915, Conductor, Vs The Apsrtc rep by Regional Manager

M.S. Bhaskar, Vs The General Manager