Judgment · High Court

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 10.10.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIANWrit Petition(MD)No.11527 of 2011T.Ramakrishnan... PetitionerVs.

The District Collector, cum The Regional Transport Authority, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

The Regional Transport Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

The Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II, Regional Transport Office, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

The Inspector of Police, Vadasery Police Station, Kanyakumari District. ... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India forthe issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent torelease the mini bus bearing Registration No.TN-74-E-7817 seized on16.09.2011 and hand it over to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramadhas For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss Government Advocate.

O R D E RThe petitioner is the owner of a mini bus bearing RegistrationNo.TN-74-E-7817. He also holds a permit to ply the vehicle from VadaseryBus Stand to Mathias Nagar (via), M.S.Road Turning, Krishnankoil, VAOOffice Turning, Raja Kumar Thirumanamandapam, Aruguvilai Jn, PuliyadiTurning, Puliyadi Bus Stop, Aanaiparai, Kavimoni Nager, Erachakulam HighSchool, Sun Polytechnic and Gnanadhasapuram. 2. On 16.09.2011, the third respondent seized the vehicle under Section 207 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, after givinga representation on 17.09.2011 to the second respondent, the petitionerhas come up with the above writ petition seeking a direction to thesecond respondent to release the mini bus. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Heard Mr.M.Ramadhas, learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. On 04.10.2011, this Court ordered notice to the learnedGovernment Advocate. Today, Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned GovernmentAdvocate, on instructions submitted that the vehicle was seized forviolation of permit conditions. The learned Government Advocate alsosubmitted that the second respondent had necessary power under Section207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the seizure was perfectlyjustified. 5. However, sub Section (2) of Section 207 makes it clear thatthe seizure of the vehicles is not a permanent feature. The transportauthority or any officer authorised by the State Government in thatbehalf is always entitled under sub Section (2) of Section 207 to releasethe vehicle after verification of the documents and subject to suchconditions as it may deem fit and proper. While the seizure of a vehiclemay be justified, its detention for a long period of time may not be inthe interest of either the owner of the vehicle or even the Government. It is necessary in such cases that consequential orders are passed withina time frame by the appropriate authorities. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is ordered directingthe release of mini bus owned by the petitioner bearing RegistrationNo.TN-74-E-7817, subject to such conditions as the second respondent mayimpose and also subject to the condition that the petitioner producesnecessary documents. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetition is closed.smsSd/-Assistant Registrar/True copy/Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CUM THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL.2.THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.3.THE MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR GRADE-II, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADASERY POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. +1 CC TO M/S.M.RAMADHAS, ADVOCATE SR.NO.34940. +1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.NO.35041.Writ Petition(MD)No.11527 of 2011 Dated:10.10.20112P/7CRPB : 11.10.2011 [I.T.]