Back
Madras High Court
R. BANUMATHI
V.N.Dharmakrishnan - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Transport, Madurai - Respondent
Decided On : 04/10/2006
Writ Petition - Ambulance Services - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 41(4), Section 52(1), Rule 62 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 - The judgment discusses the violation of statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Fifth Respondent in operating goods vehicles as ambulances without proper permits and fitness certificates. The court highlights the ban on altering vehicles and the requirement of fitness certificates for ambulances, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the legal framework in vehicle operation.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a Ward Councillor, seeks a Writ of Mandamus to direct an enquiry into the illegal operation of ambulances by the Fifth Respondent. The Petitioner alleges that the ambulances are not properly registered and operated without necessary permits. The Fifth Respondent claims to provide free ambulance services and accuses the Petitioner of personal rivalry.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the Writ Petition is a result of personal rivalry between the parties and dismisses the petition. It imposes a cost on both the Petitioner and the Fifth Respondent for wasting judicial time.
Issues: The main issues revolve around the legality of operating goods vehicles as ambulances, the personal rivalry between the parties, and the maintainability of the Writ Petition as a Public Interest Litigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the importance of adhering to the legal framework outlined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and highlights the ban on altering vehicles and the requirement of fitness certificates for ambulances. It also warns against filing vexatious petitions and imposes a cost on the parties for wasting judicial time.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is dismissed, and both the Petitioner and the Fifth Respondent are directed to pay a cost to the High Court Legal Services Committee.
2. Case of the Petitioner is that:
The Petitioner is a Councillor for Ward No. 41 in Rajapalayam Municipality. The Fifth Respondent is alleged to have formed "Nanbargal Narpani Mandram", which according to the Petitioner has been formed with an object to extract money from the Public by illegal means. The Fifth Respondent is having two ambulances in the name of "Mappillai Vinayakar Ambulance Service" with Registration No. TN-67-S-4069 and TN-59-B-4488. Both the vehicles are not properly registered as ambulance. Further, the registration number of the vehicles are also fake. The Fifth Respondent has also not obtained any certificate from the office of the Regional Transport Officer for operating those vehicles as Ambulances. The Fifth Respondent involved in several criminal cases and a case has been registered and he was convicted by Judicial Magistrate III, Srivilliputtur in C. C. No. 505 of 1992 on 29-11-1995 and the same has also been confirmed in Crl. Appeal No. 143 of 1995.
3. The vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-67-S-4069 has also met with an accident on 3-11-2005, regarding which, a case has been registered by the Fourth Respondent in Crime No. 724 of 2005 and the Fourth Respondent had not taken any steps to seize the vehicle. The petitioner also sent Telegram to Respondents 2 to 4 about the involvement of the vehicles in the illegal activities. Further, the Petitioner sent legal notice dated 12-11-2005 to Respondents 2 to 4, to which, the Second Respondent sent reply on 1-12-2005 stating that instructions had been given to the officials to watch over the movement of the two vehicles. Hence, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. The Third Respondent /Motor Vehicles Inspector has filed number of Counter-Affidavits, alleging that the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-67-S-4069 was previously covered by goods carriage permit and the said permit in the name of N. S. Ramaraj was also cancelled. The vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-59-B-4488 was previously covered by Maxi Cab at Tirunelveli Jurisdiction. On receipt of the legal notice issued by the Petitioner, officials had been instructed to keep watch over the vehicles. Further counter-affidavit has also been filed stating that the goods vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-67-S-4069 has been used as an Ambulance without proper permit.
5. The Fifth Respondent has filed a Counter-Affidavit referring to number of criminal cases registered against the Petitioner. According to the Fifth Respondent, he and other noble, like minded persons have formed an organisation by name "Dharmapuram Sri Mappillai Vinayagar Kovil Sathurthi Alayam Nanbargal Naprani Mandram" and they have been doing services to the public in Rajapalayam. According to the Fifth Respondent, the Mandram has been helping the public by rendering 24 hours free Ambulance service, blood donation and several other similar social service activities. It is alleged that the Writ Petitioner himself attempted to run an ambulance bearing No. TN-67-Q-1452 - a Mahindra vehicle and his attempt to run Ambulance service failed because of the free Ambulance service rendered by the Fifth Respondent. In the Counter-Affidavit, the Fifth Respondent has also explained the criminal cases registered against him.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and without proper licence, the Fifth Respondent is operating the vehicles as Ambulances. It is further submitted that to the legal notice and to the representation sent by the Petitioner, the First Respondent has not properly responded and hence, the Petitioner filed the W
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
