T.Boopathi, v. The Motor Vehicles Inspector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.03.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.No.6185 of 2017 T.Boopathi

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Motor vehicles Inspector, Grade-I Unit Office: Tirupattur.

2. The Regional Transport Officer, Krishnagiri.

....Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to release the petitioner's spare bus bearing registration No.TN52 B 7171 which was impounded by the 1st respondent on 1.3.2017 forthwith.

For Petitioner ...

Mr.R.Natesan For Respondents ..

Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali Government Advocate.

O R D E R

The petitioner seeks for a mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to release the petitioner's spare bus bearing registration No.TN52 B 7171, which was impounded by the 1st respondent on 01.03.2017.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali, learned Government Advocate, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

3. It is stated that the petitioner's spare bus bearing Registration No. TN52 B 7171 was impounded on 01.03.2017 on the allegation that it did not carry relevant documents, namely, driving license of the driver, registration certificate, fitness certificate & pollution control certificate. According to the

petitioner, those documents are very much available and the petitioner is ready and willing to produce the same before the respondents. It is further stated that the petitioner's request for release of the vehicle as sought for through his representation dated 10.03.2017 is not considered and the respondents are keeping the vehicle idle, thereby, allowing the same to get exposed to sun and rain which would diminish its value. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the petitioner produces the relevant documents, the respondents may be directed to release the vehicle forthwith and thereafter they can issue proceedings imposing compounding fee, if any, which the petitioner will challenge before appropriate forum in the manner known to law.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents will pass appropriate orders fixing the compounding fee and inform the same to the petitioner without loss of further time.

5. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances and considering the fact that the vehicle was seized as early as 01.03.2017 and the same is kept idle at the premises of the 2nd respondent, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions, which according to my view, will protect the interest of both parties.

a) The petitioner shall produce all the relevant documents/ certificates before the 2nd respondent immediately on receipt of a copy of this order.

b) On receipt of production of those documents/ certificates, the 2nd respondent shall release the vehicle after getting an undertaking from the petitioner that he will not alienate the same and produce the vehicle before the 2nd respondent as and when required.

c) The respondents shall pass orders and inform the petitioner about the quantum of compounding fee fixed in this matter within a period of two weeks thereafter.

No costs.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar vsi

To

1. The Motor vehicles Inspector, Grade-I, Unit Office: Tirupattur.

2. The Regional Transport Officer, Krishnagiri.

+1cc to Mr.R.Natesan,Advocate sr.15787 W.P.No.6185 of 2017 usn(co) ss(15/3/2017)