Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 44166
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.MALA, J
Chinnasamy – Appellant
Versus
The Registering Authority/Regional Transport Officer, Dharmapuri – Respondent
W.P.No.11106 of 2025
For the Petitioner: Mr.J.Pradeep
For the Respondents:Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, Government Advocate
The court reinforced that administrative actions must be consistent and fair, particularly concerning registrants lacking knowledge of fraudulent activities.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus sought to quash a cancellation order and restore vehicle registration. The petitioner, a bona fide purchaser, contested the arbitrary cancellation by Regional Transport authorities citing inconsistent grounds of fraud. (Paras 2, 3)
(B) Administrative Law - Arbitrary exercise of power - The court emphasized the need for consistency in cancellation orders and proper consideration of the petitioner's submissions. The conditions pertaining to vehicle custody were aligned with judicial precedents in similar cases. (Paras 4-6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner purchased a vehicle, verified requisite documents leading to registration, but faced detention and cancellation based on alleged fraudulent activities by others, with no direct allegations against him. (Para 2)
Findings of Court:
The court permitted the petitioner to take back the vehicle under stringent conditions, reinforcing the need for cooperation in ongoing investigations of fraudulent registrations. (Paras 5-6)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the cancellation order and the treatment of bona fide purchasers in cases of fraudulent registrations. (Paras 4-6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the principle that responses to procedural actions must be given proper weight, ensuring that arbitrary actions of authorities are scrutinized. (Paras 5-6)
Result: Writ Petition disposed of with conditions for vehicle return.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner contests the arbitrary cancellation of vehicle registration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court mandates cooperation with ongoing investigations on fraudulent registrations. (Para 5) |
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent made in proceedings, R.No.43544/B3/2022 dated 22.05.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to restore the vehicle bearing the registration No.TN 10 AM 3869, and direct the 1st respondent return the vehicle bearing the registration No.TN 10 AM 3869 to the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased a pre-owned vehicle bearing registration No.TN 10 AM 3869 from one Muniyappan after verifying all requisite documents, including the purchase invoice, tax invoice, insurance cover note, and the Registration Certificate (RC). Upon due verification, the Regional Transport Authorities transferred the registration in the petitioner’s name. Subsequently, the vehicle was detained by the Regional Transport Officer, Dharmapuri, for verification of documents. A show cause notice dated 24.01.2023 was issued, and the petitioner submitted a detailed reply along with all supporting documents on 13.02.2023. Despite this, the first respondent issued an order dated 22.05.2023 in R.No.43544/B3/2022, canceling the registration on the ground that it was fraudulently obtained using an unauthorized user ID. It was also revealed that nearly 290 BS IV vehicles had been similarly registered. The impugned cancellation order inconsistently cited two different grounds- initially branding the registration as “fake” and later stating it was “fraudulently obtained”.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser who had verified all necessary documents before purchase and had no knowledge of any fraudulent activity in the registration process. He submits that the impugned cancellation order is vague and inconsistent, as it initially refers to the registration as fake and later claims it was fraudulently obtained, despite the fact that the vehicle has a valid registration and was officially transferred in his name. He submits that the petitioner also emphasizes that no allegation has been made against him regarding any fraudulent conduct and that the petitioner's detailed reply to the show cause notice was not properly considered.
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents are at idem that the matter was covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.7322 of 2023 in R.Yuvaraj Vs. The Transport Commissioner and others, wherein, a learned Single Judge, in similar circumstances, had directed that the vehicle should be returned by imposing a condition that the petitioner should not alienate or deal with the vehicle, but must retain the vehicle till the investigation is completed. The same conditions will apply to the petitioner herein and this Court is also inclined to permit the petitioner to take custody of the Car subject to the following conditions:
a) The petitioner is directed to give an undertaking before the concerned RTO that the car will be kept in the residence and it will not be put to use at any point of time.
b) The petitioner shall surrender the original RC book and also the original insurance policy to the concerned RTO.
c) The petitioner shall attend the enquiry conducted by the RTO or any other authority and shall cooperate in providing the details as to the person from whom the car was purchased, the amount that was given etc. The petitioner is permitted to take back the car only on the strict compliance of this condition.
d) The petitioner shall submit a monthly report before the concerned RTO reiterating that the vehicle has not been put to use and that the undertaking given at th
