Z.Amanullah, v. State Of Tamil Nadu,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02.06.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Z.Amanullah

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Secretariat, Chennai.

2.The Transport Commissioner, Transport Commissioner, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

3.The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Udhagamandalam.

4.Javid Sait 5.Manju

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to effect the name change of the petitioner's four wheeler Car SUV Car bearing TN 43 P 8182.

For Petitioner :

Mr.M.Saravanakumar For Respondents :

Mr.P.Siddarth Government Counsel for R1 to R3

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to effect the name change of the petitioner's four wheeler SUV Car bearing TN 43 P 8182.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of four wheeler car bearing TN 43 P 8182, registered at the office of the third respondent, for which the fourth respondent contacted the petitioner for providing finance to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- in the year 2021 and got signatures from the petitioner in blank papers and blank cheques as security purpose. The petitioner repaid the entire loan amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and also gave a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the fourth respondent for registration

purpose of his vehicle and the vehicle was transferred in the petitioner's name. Thereafter, the said vehicle was misused by the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent deceived the petitioner by forging his signature and sold the car to one Chandrasekar who is the husband of Manju, fifth respondent herein. When the fifth respondent applied for name change in her name with the duplicated signature of the petitioner as forged by the fourth respondent, the third respondent issued notices to the petitioner to appear before them for enquiry and the petitioner attended enquiry and the petitioner, being the bonafide purchaser, has been put to undue harassment. Hence, the writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner availed financial loan from the fourth respondent for purchasing the car, for which, the fourth respondent obtained his signatures in blank papers and blank cheques and misused the same and sold his car to one Chandrasekar who is the husband of fifth respondent and the fifth respondent applied for name change before the third respondent, thereby, the petitioner came to know about the said fact and aggrieved by the act of the respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

4. The learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that it is purely a civil dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent and it has to be ventilated only before the civil Court. If any Form is filed before the third respondent, the third respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders strictly in terms of the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules.

5. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, this Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the civil Court for appropriate remedy. There shall be no order as to costs.

02.06.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order ssb To 1.The Principal Secretary, Rep.by its State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Transport, Secretariat, Chennai.

2.The Transport Commissioner, Transport Commissioner, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

3.The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Udhagamandalam.

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

ssb 02.06.2026