M.Kumarasamy Engineering College v. The Regional Transport Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.07.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN M.Kumarasamy College of Engineering, Represented by its Principal, N.Ramesh Babu, Thalavapalayam, Karur, Karur District.
... Petitioner ( in all Writ Petitions) Vs 1.The Regional Transport Officer, Thanthonimalai, Karur, Karur District.
2.The Assistant Registering Authority, Regional Transport Office, Thanthonimalai, Karur, Karur District.
3.The Motor Inspector, Regional Transport Office, Manmangalam, Karur, Karur District.
... Respondents ( in all Writ Petitions) COMMON PRAYER:
PetitionS filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to remove petitioner's educational institution vehicles bearing registration Nos. TN 47 B 7057, TN 47 C 2679, TN 47 H 8569 and TN 47 F 7667 respectively, from black list on the file of the respondents and forbear the respondents from demanding any additional or higher motor vehicle tax for the period from 2003 to 2006 and also renew the motor vechicle permit for the Vehicle TN 47 H 8569 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 17.09.2019.
(in all Writ Petitions) For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sukumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan, Government Advocate.
1/3
COMMON ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2.The petitioner in these Writ Petitions is one and the same. The petitioner is an engineering college/ an educational institution. They are owning the petition mentioned busses. The petitioner is having valid carriage permits. However, the respondents has declined to issue the fitness certificate etc., in respect of the petitioner's institutional vehicles. When the petitioner approached the authorities, the petitioner was informed that the petition mentioned vehicles have been listed in the black list. The reason appears to be non-payment of enhanced tax for the period from the year 2003-2006.
3. The petitioner's counsel informs the Court that the respondents are not justified in their action, as the issue is already covered by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9253 of 2010.
4. In fact that the stand taken by the petitioner is not contested by the respondents.
5.The learned Government Advocate relying on the written instructions of the RTO, Karur states that the Motor Vehicles, Inspector. Grade-I, Manmangalam had been directed to remove the petition mentioned vehicles from the on line black list at once.
6. Recording the said submission, these writ petitions are allowed. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AD-II) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) das Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
2/3
To 1.The Regional Transport Officer, Thanthonimalai, Karur, Karur District.
2.The Assistant Registering Authority, Regional Transport Office, Thanthonimalai, Karur, Karur District.
3.The Motor Inspector, Regional Transport Office, Manmangalam, Karur, Karur District.
15.07.2020 KG(CO) TR(20.07.2020) 3P 4C 3/3