Neelavathy v. The Regional Transport Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.02.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Neelavathy ... Petitioner versus

1. The Regional Transport Officer, Tiruchirappalli West, Tiruchirappalli District.

2. The Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-I, Unit Office, Manapparai, Tiruchirappalli District.

... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to release the petitioner's Idle Vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN25 M 1549, which is now in the custody of the 2nd respondent forthwith.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.A.C.Asaithambi For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus, directing the the first respondent to release the petitioner's vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN25 M 1549, which is now under the custody of the 2nd respondent.

2. The petitioner is a Stage Carriage Operator in Tiruppur District. She claims that she was having a Spare Bus bearing Reg.No.TN25M 1549 and its permit is valid upto 16.02.2025. Since the said vehicle had kept idle, she sold it to one Asan Mohammed on 25.02.2023 and the vehicle was sent for tinkering service in the Manapparai workshop. After the completion of the tinkering service, when the purchaser was on his way towards Kallakurichi with the said vehicle, the second respondent seized the vehicle and issued a Check 2/5

Report dated 27.02.2023. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader, by referring the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, submits that at the time of inspection, it was found that the chassis number of the vehicle was different. He further submits that on verification of on-line records, it was found that another Mini Bus bearing Reg.No.TN25M 1549 was operated with illegal change of number plate as TN68H 6514. Therefore, the petitioner's vehicle was seized. He further submits that the petitioner has not produced any relevant documents of the said vehicle and also not produced any documents to the effect that the vehicle was sold to another person.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not played any such mischief and there is no reference in the counter affidavit about the chassis number. He further 3/5

submits that the petitioner is having all relevant documents and she is also ready to produce the relevant documents before the respondents.

5. In view of the same, this writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the petitioner to approach the respondents and produce all relevant documents. On production of such documents, the respondents shall consider the same and pass suitable orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

09.02.2024 ogy NCC : Yes / No.

Index : Yes / No.

Internet : Yes / No.

To

1. The Regional Transport Officer, Tiruchirappalli West, Tiruchirappalli District.

2. The Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-I, Unit Office, Manapparai, Tiruchirappalli District.

4/5

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ogy 09.02.2024 5/5