Mr.A.Ganesh v. Regional Transport Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.04.2023 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Mr.A.Ganesh ... Petitioner -Vs1. Regional Transport Officer Regional Transport Office Rajiv Gandhi IT Expy Sholinganallur Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 119.

2. Regional Transport Officer Chennai (West) No.1 Baharathidasan Colony Mambalam Taluk office Complex K.K.Nagar, Chennai- 600 078.

3. The Inspector of Police Crime Branch, J1 Police Station No.49/1, Anna Salai Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.

.. Respondents Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to consider and dispose off the Petitioner representation dated 19.09.2020.

For Petitioner Mr.S.Chinnasamy For Respondents Mr.C.Selvaraj Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 19.09.2020. 2.The case of the petitioner is that he was the owner of a Car. Based on the complaint given by one Muruganantham, the third respondent opened a CSR vide CSR No.529 of 2019. In the course of enquiry, the Car was taken away from the petitioner and it is said to have been handed over to the said Muruganantham. Apart from the Car, all the relevant documents pertaining to the Car was also taken over and it was handed over to Muruganantham. The further case of the petitioner is that the said Murruganantham had gone before the first respondent and managed to transfer the Car in his name. In view of the same, the petitioner made a representation on 19.09.2020.

Since the same was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 3.Heard Mr.S.Chinnasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 4.In the considered view of this Court, there was a private dispute between the petitioner and one Muruganantham. The said Muruganantham had given a complaint and the Car is said to have been handed over in the year 2019 itself by the third respondent Police.

respondent to act upon this representation and take further action. The nature of dispute ventilated before this Court does not bring the original transport officer into the picture at all. It was a dispute between the petitioner and the Muruganantham and the third respondent is said to have taken away the Car and the documents in a high handed manner without even registering an FIR. If that is the case, the petitioner has not filed appropriate petition against the third respondent Police and making a representation to the original transport officer will not resolve the problem faced by the petitioner. That apart, the complaint was of the year 2019 and the Car was handed over in the year 2019 itself and the representation was given in the year 2020 and this writ petition has been moved in the year 2023.

Hence, this writ petition is hit by laches also. It is left open to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum and no orders can be passed in this writ petition. 5.This writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 19.04.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

KP To

1. Regional Transport Officer Regional Transport Office Rajiv Gandhi IT Expy Sholinganallur Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 119.

2. Regional Transport Officer Chennai (West) No.1 Baharathidasan Colony Mambalam Taluk office Complex K.K.Nagar, Chennai- 600 078.

3. The Inspector of Police Crime Branch, J1 Police Station No.49/1, Anna Salai Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.

19.04.2023