Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 12434
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J
R.RAMADAS – Appellant
Versus
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE – Respondent
Transport authorities may take action only when there is actual non-compliance regarding vehicle insurance and tax payments.
Headnote:
Writ - Mandamus - N/A - This case discusses the legal obligation of transport authorities regarding insurance coverage and road tax, highlighting the need for compliance before any action is taken by the authorities.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking action against the fifth respondent for plying two lorries without insurance and road tax. The petitioner claimed the fifth respondent took the vehicles post a partnership split.
Finding of the Court:
The court found it unnecessary to delve into the partnership dispute and acknowledged the fifth respondent's claim that he would not ply the vehicles without proper insurance and tax payment. The court decided that action would be taken by transport authorities if issues arise in the future.
Issues: Whether the respondents must take action against the fifth respondent for allegedly operating vehicles without insurance and road tax.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the fifth respondent's commitment to compliance rendered any current action by the authorities unnecessary, deferring any potential action to future compliance checks.
Final Decision: Writ petition disposed off with no direction for immediate action.
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 Kuppam, Kepper Hills, Cuddalore – 607 001.
4.The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Regional Transport Office, Kariyari Vitta Kuppam, Kepper Hills, Cuddalore – 607 001.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
pri
05.03.2024
