Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
JITHIN JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C)/17330/2022
Writ - Blacklisting - Act Section List - The court dealt with the issue of blacklisting a vehicle and determined that verification was needed before imposing such a sanction, reflecting a commitment to due process and fairness in administrative actions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking removal of blacklisting of their vehicle from the mParivahan app and related websites, along with permission to sell and register the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that upon review, the Government Pleader indicated that a verification was conducted and it was decided not to blacklist the petitioner's vehicle. Consequently, the petition was resolved.
Issues: The main issue was whether the blacklisting of the petitioner's vehicle was justified and whether the petitioner should be allowed to sell and register their vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that procedural fairness must be upheld, requiring verification before a vehicle can be blacklisted, ensuring the petitioner’s rights were preserved in the administrative process.
Final Decision: The petition was closed as the vehicle would not be blacklisted.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to remove the blacklisting of the petitioner's vehicle in mParivahan mobile app and Parivahan website.
ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to remove all the adverse entries against the petitioner's vehicle in mParivahan mobile app and Parivahan website including restriction regarding the sale.
iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to sell his vehicle and accordingly register the same.
iv. To pass any such any orders as the Petitioner may seek and this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant. (SIC)
2. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the Government Pleader, on instruction from the official respondents, submitted that a verification is conducted and thereafter it is decided not to blacklist the vehicle of the petitioner.
The same is recorded and the writ petition is closed.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17330/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION.
Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE DRAFT OF APPLICATION DATED 6.12.2021.
Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28.12.2021.
Exhibit P4 A COPY OF LETTER DATED 6.10.2016 OF ADVOCATE NAGESH REDDY.
Exhibit P5 A DRAFT APPLICATION AS RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
Exhibit P6 A COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 A COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C5/E77576/TC/2018 DT. 17.11.2018 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 A COPY OF THE BLACK LIST STATUS OF THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLE IN MPARIVAHAN.
EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF HTE FIR NO.863/2018 OF MADHAPUR (GUTTALA) POLICE STATION,L CYBERABAD DISTRICT DATED 22.10.2018
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
