IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.03.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.No.1757 of 2024 R.Ramadas ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Neyveli, Cuddalore District.

3.The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Kariyari Vitta Kuppam, Kepper Hills, Cuddalore – 607 001.

4.The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Regional Transport Office, Kariyari Vitta Kuppam, Kepper Hills, Cuddalore – 607 001.

5.S.Vadivel ... Respondents Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate legal action against the fifth respondent for having plied the vehicles viz., Taurus Lorries bearing Regn.No.TN31CW 0850 and TN31CW 1131 in the name of petitioner company without insurance coverage and without payment of road tax and for tampering the records in Regional Transport Office, Neyveli by making payment in the name of petitioner company without the knowledge of petitioner company, in consideration of representation submitted by the petitioner dated 25.11.2023, 24.12.2023, 28.12.2023, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath for R1 to R4 Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Mr.D.Magesh for R5

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take action against the fifth respondent for plying two lorries without insurance coverage and without payment of road tax and by tampering the records in Regional Transport Office at Neyveli.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for the fifth respondent.

3.On carefully considering the submissions made on either side, it is seen that the petitioner and the fifth respondent were running partnership firm and they split out due to some misunderstanding. Certain vehicles were purchased when the partnership firm was carrying on with the business. The grievance of the petitioner is that the fifth respondent had taken away two vehicles and he is plying those vehicles without insurance coverage and without payment of road tax. Therefore, the petitioner had made representations to the Authorities to take action against the fifth respondent.

4.The fifth respondent has come up with the stand that he is not plying the two lorries since he is expecting for the no objection certificate from the petitioner since according to the fifth respondent, the fifth respondent has paid the amount to the bank. This statement made by the fifth respondent is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5.The learned counsel for the fifth respondent further submitted that he will not ply the vehicles without proper insurance coverage and without payment of road tax.

6.In the considered view of this Court, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the dispute between the petitioner and the fifth respondent and it has to be resolved before the competent forum. The fifth respondent has come up with a clear stand that he will not ply the vehicles without insurance coverage and without payment of road tax. Therefore, there is no question of directing the Authorities to take any action against the fifth respondent till he complies with this undertaking. Ultimately, if the vehicles are used without proper insurance coverage and without payment of road tax, the Transport Authorities will take action in accordance with law.

7.This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

05.03.2024 pri Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order: Yes/ No NCC: Yes/ No To

1.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Neyveli, Cuddalore District.

3.The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Kariyari Vitta