Skip to content


S. Rajendra Prasad Vs. The Regional Transport Officer, Nagercoil and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Chennai Madurai High Court

Decided On

Case Number

W.P (MD) No. 20436 of 2015

Judge

Appellant

S. Rajendra Prasad

Respondent

The Regional Transport Officer, Nagercoil and Another

Excerpt:


.....the bus in a deviated route. 3. on the other hand, the learned government advocate has submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and always taking the bus in a different route. it is submitted that in an earlier occasion, the bus was seized and he paid the compounding fee of rs.9,000/- on 06.08.2015 and for the second time offence, the permit has to be suspended or cancelled, according to the learned government advocate. 4. after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner is a minibus operator, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to release the minibus referred to above, which is under custody of the second respondent and detained in aralvoimozhi police station, on payment of compounding of rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) to the first respondent. no costs.

Judgment:


(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to release the petitioner Mini Bus in bearing registration No.TN 28 A 5666 and consider the petitioner representation dated 14.11.2015.)

1. The petitioner is a minibus operator. The minibus bearing Registration No.TN 28 A 5666 was seized on 14.11.2015 by the second respondent on the ground that the minibus was operated in a different route i.e. it was not operated in the permitted route and on the other hand, it was operated in a different route and it was detained in Aralvoimozhi Police Station. It was also alleged in the seizure report that the petitioner did not produce R.C.book, Fitness Certificate and Insurance Certificate. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for direction to release the minibus.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the route in which the minibus has to be operated became one way due to traffic regulation. It is stated that the route between Vadasery Bus stand and Thazhakudi bus stop was declared as one way and hence, he took the bus in a deviated route.

3. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and always taking the bus in a different route. It is submitted that in an earlier occasion, the bus was seized and he paid the compounding fee of Rs.9,000/- on 06.08.2015 and for the second time offence, the permit has to be suspended or cancelled, according to the learned Government Advocate.

4. After taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner is a minibus operator, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to release the minibus referred to above, which is under custody of the second respondent and detained in Aralvoimozhi Police Station, on payment of compounding of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the first respondent. No costs.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //