Saminathan v. The Regional Transport Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.01.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P.No.15456 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.16381 & 16383 of 2021 Saminathan .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Regional Transport Officer Regional Transport Office, 2.The Regional Transport Officer Regional Transport Office, Mettur.

3.The Inspector of Police, Kottar Police Station, Kanyakumari.

4.M. N. N. R. Infra Projects Rep by its Manager, Mr. Siva Reddy, S/o. Athinarayan Reddy, Vattavilai, Nagerkoil.

5.Kani Choice Automotive Rep by its Authorised Signatory, Mr. Sudhakar, S. F. No. 11/13-A,

Annamalaiyar Mills Colony, Vellodu Village, Dindigul.

6.Dhanaraj S/o. Ramasamy, No. 249, Thanthoni, Thungavi Post, Madathukulam, Tiruppur District.

7.M/s. Sree Infrastructure Consultancy Rep by its Partner, P. Sathiyanarayan Reddy, No. 29/31, 1st Street, Satiyappan West Mela Street, .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Ceritorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned notice dated nil of the 1st respondent blacklisting the petitioner's JCB Vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-51-J-2175 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register the said vehicle in the name of the petitioner by accepting the Transfer of Ownership Form issued by the 7th respondent.

For Petitioner .. Mr.J.Aravind For Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar For R1 to R3 .. Mr.V.Nanmaran, AGP For R6 .. Mr.M.N.Balakrishnan For R4, R5 & R7 .. Unserved / Tapal Returned

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to an impugned notice of the 1st respondent, the Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Nagapattinam, blacklisting the JCB vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-51-J-2175 and directing the 2nd respondent to register the vehicle in the name of the petitioner by accepting the transfer of Ownership Form issued by the 7th respondent.

2.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been stated that the petitioner had purchased the aforementioned vehicle from the 5th respondent. He thereafter, filed an application seeking transfer of ownership. At that time, it was informed that the vehicle had been blacklisted, since it was contended that the vehicle had been stolen. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the vehicle had not been stolen, but only exchanged.

4.These are facts which could be explained, but the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain these facts. It is contended that the impugned order had been passed without affording any hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is struck down. It is considered as a show cause notice. The petitioner may give a representation to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent may provide opportunity to the petitioner and also hear the 5th respondent about how he came to be in possession of the vehicle and thereafter, pass fresh orders. The entire exercise may be completed on or before 31.03.2025. The petitioner to give a representation on or before 29.01.2025 and the same should be considered by the 1st respondent before passing final orders.

5.With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 07.01.2025 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No smv

To 1.The Regional Transport Officer Regional Transport Office, 2.The Regional Transport Officer Regional Transport Office, Mettur.

3.The Inspector of Police, Kottar Police Station, Kanyakumari.

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

smv W.P.No.15456 of 2021 07.01.2025