1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED :12.09.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

W.P.(MD) No.19481 of 2019

A.Karunakaran

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The District Collector/

The Regional Transport Authority,

Kanyakumari District.

2.The Regional Transport Officer,

Regional Transport Office,

Marthandam Regional,

Kolipor Villazhi,

Mulagumoodu Post,

Kannyakumari District.

... Respondents

PRAYER : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st and 2^nd

respondents to release the petitioner's minibus, bearing

registration No.TN 75 C 1513 from the custody of the 2^nd respondent.

For Petitioner

: Mr.S.Michael Sebastin

For Respondents : Mr.P.Kannithevan

Government Advocate

O R D E R

The petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition

seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st and 2^nd

respondents to release his Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN 75 C

1513 from the custody of the 2^nd respondent.

2. Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, learned Special Government Pleader,

who takes notice on behalf of the respondent, would vehemently

oppose the release of Mini Bus on the ground that the petitioner has

willfully violated the permit conditions.

3. The Mini Bus belonging to the petitioner was seized by the

second respondent on the ground that it was plying on an

unauthorized route. The act of seizure cannot be faulted. But, then

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2

the question is whether it should be released or not. No purpose

will be served in continuing to keep the said Mini Bus in the

custody of the respondent, since the vehicle would only lose its

value by exposure in open area. That apart, this Court can take

judicial notice of the fact that the parts of such detained buses go

missing. Therefore, the second respondent is directed to return the

Mini Bus to the petitioner on payment of a sum of Rs.10,000/-

(Rupees ten thousand only) within a period of one week from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order.

4. The petitioner has to file an undertaking affidavit before

the second respondent offering to extend full co-operation with the

enquiry that may be initiated by the respondent. The petitioner

shall not alienate the vehicle till the conclusion of the enquiry.

The petitioner shall also undertake not to violate the permit

conditions in future. If the permit conditions are again violated,

it would be open to the respondent to seize the vehicle in that

event.

5. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

// True Copy //

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

To:

1.The District Collector/

The Regional Transport Authority,

Kanyakumari District.

2.The Regional Transport Officer,

Regional Transport Office,

Marthandam Regional,

Kolipor Villazhi,

Mulagumoodu Post,

Kannyakumari District.

+1 CC to M/s.B.MICHEAL SEBASTIN, Advocate ( SR-86270[F] dated

12/09/2019 )

W.P.(MD) No.19481 of 2019

12.09.2019

vs

JMN(12.09.2019) 2P : 4C

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/