Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P No. 11544 of 2005

Advocates

For the Appellant: P.T.S. Narendravasan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: J. Viswanathan, GA. N. Dilip Kumar, Advocates.

Judges

Mrs. R. Banumathi, J.

Acts

Section 86(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rules 172(1) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988,
provisions of the Rules. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 under Section 41(4), the Central Government
Motor Vehicles Act (Amendment) 2000 (Act 27/2000), the Government of India
Rule 95 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989
20 (Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989),
SECTION 52 MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
Section 52(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner, a Councillor for Ward No. 41 in Rajapalayam Municipality, seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the First Respondent personally to conduct an enquiry (without insisting that Respondents 2 and 3 do so) in relation to two vehicles alleged to be operated as ambulances by the Fifth Respondent. The vehicles in question bear registration numbers TN-67-S-4069 and TN-59-B-4488 and are said to be under the custody of the Fifth Respondent.

The Petitioner alleged that the Fifth Respondent formed an organisation ('Nanbargal Narpani Mandram' / 'Dharmapuram Sri Mappillai Vinayagar Kovil Sathurthi Alayam Nanbargal Naprani Mandram') to extract money by illegal means, and that the two vehicles were not properly registered as ambulances, that their registration numbers were fake, and that no certificate from the Regional Transport Officer permitting their operation as ambulances had been obtained. The Petitioner sent telegrams and a legal notice dated 12-11-2005 and a further legal notice dated 14-11-2005 and a representation dated 28-11-2005 to Respondents 2 to 4 alleging illegal activity.

Respondents, in particular the Third Respondent (Motor Vehicles Inspector), filed multiple counter-affidavits explaining the registration history of the vehicles, noting previous permits (goods carriage and maxi cab) and cancellation of permits. The Third Respondent reported that the goods vehicle TN-67-S-4069 had its permit cancelled effective 25-6-2004 under Section 86(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 172(1) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988, and later seized TN-67-S-4069 on 1-4-2006 for lack of RC, insurance certificate, tax token, and driving licence.

The Fifth Respondent, through counter-affidavit, denied illegality and described running a free ambulance service, blood donation and other social services, and disputed the seizure of TN-67-S-4069. The Government Advocate and learned counsel for various parties made submissions regarding personal rivalry between the Petitioner and the Fifth Respondent and about the scope of the Respondents' power to seize and act.

The Court considered the evidence and counter-affidavits, examined the registration and permit history of the vehicles, addressed issues of misuse of vehicles registered as goods carriers being employed as ambulances in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, and ultimately dismissed the Writ Petition and imposed costs. The Court found the petition motivated by business rivalry and noted the Petitioner has multiple criminal cases pending.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the First Respondent should be directed by writ to personally conduct an enquiry (without insisting that Respondents 2 and 3 do so) into the operation of vehicles TN-67-S-4069 and TN-59-B-4488 allegedly being used as ambulances by the Fifth Respondent.
Whether the use of vehicles registered as goods carriage or covered by other permits as ambulances without appropriate registration, fitness certificate, tax payments and permits violates the Motor Vehicles Act and related Rules, and whether such use can be condoned.
Whether the seizure of vehicle TN-67-S-4069 by the Third Respondent (for absence of RC, insurance, tax token and driving licence) was justified.
Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable in the circumstances alleged — specifically whether the Petitioner has locus and whether the petition is a disguised public interest litigation or motivated by personal/business rivalry.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The Fifth Respondent is operating two vehicles as ambulances (TN-67-S-4069 and TN-59-B-4488) in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and without proper licence or certification from the Regional Transport Officer.
The vehicles are not properly registered as ambulances and their registration numbers are alleged to be fake.
The Petitioner, as a Ward Councillor, asserted an interest in protecting the public and sought enforcement action; he sought a writ of mandamus to direct the First Respondent to act.

Third Respondent's (Motor Vehicles Inspector) Arguments / Position

Provided a detailed counter-affidavit tracing registration history: TN-67-S-4069 was registered as a delivery van/goods carrier (temporary certificate under Rule 95, permanent registration in Form 20 under Rule 47) and its permit was cancelled effective 25-6-2004 for non-payment of tax under Section 86(1) read with Rule 172(1).
Reported that TN-67-S-4069 was being used as an ambulance without proper permit and without fitness certificate and tax payment; that is a violation of the Rules and Act.
Stated that instructions had been given to watch the vehicles and that TN-67-S-4069 was seized on 1-4-2006 when documents and licences were not produced.

Fifth Respondent's Arguments

The Fifth Respondent and associates asserted that the Mandram runs free ambulance services, blood donation and other social services and has public support (including contributions and certificates of appreciation).
Denied that the vehicles were being illegally used or that seizure was authorized; contended that the Third Respondent had no right to seize the vehicle and that the seizure was unauthorised.
Asserted that allegations were motivated by personal/business rivalry with the Petitioner; asked for release of the seized vehicle TN-67-S-4069.

Submissions by Government Advocate

Highlighted personal rivalry between the Petitioner and the Fifth Respondent in operating ambulance services; observed that after filing the writ petition action had been taken against TN-67-S-4069 and that TN-59-B-4488 was covered by a permit in Tirunelveli jurisdiction (thus not seizureable by Respondents 1–3).
Noted that elaborate counter-affidavit had been filed by the Third Respondent showing regulatory steps taken.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded by examining factual material and documentary record supplied in the counter-affidavits, focusing on the registration/permit history of the two vehicles and statutory provisions governing vehicle classification, alteration, fitness certification and taxation. Key points in the Court's reasoning are set out below and are taken strictly from the opinion:

The Court accepted the Third Respondent's tracing of registration for TN-67-S-4069: temporary registration under Rule 95 (Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989) and permanent registration via Form 20 (Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989) showing classification as a delivery van / goods carrier. The permit-holder had not paid tax after 31-3-2004 and the permit was cancelled effective 25-6-2004 under Section 86(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 172(1) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988.
The Court considered statutory definitions and regulatory requirements: it noted the classification tables (as per SO 436(4) dated 12-6-1989 and Rule references) showing that ambulances are a distinct type within the light motor vehicle category, and quoted the statutory definition that "Ambulance" means a vehicle specially designed, constructed or modified and equipped and intended to be used for emergency transportation of persons who are sick, injured, wounded or otherwise incapacitated. The Court also referred to Section 56 and Rule 62 (Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989) on the requirement of fitness certificate and noted that ambulances must pay taxes as prescribed.
The Court emphasised statutory prohibition on alteration: under Section 52(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an owner shall not so alter a vehicle that particulars in the registration certificate vary from those originally specified by the manufacturer. The Court noted the amendment by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2000 (Act 27/2000) and an implementing circular (Transport Commissioner Circular R. No. E1/72414/2000 (Circular No. 23/2001)) that effectively bans conversion/alteration resulting in variation from manufacturer specifications.
Applying the statutory provisions to the facts, the Court concluded that a delivery van/goods carriage cannot lawfully be altered or used as an ambulance: the goods carriage registration for TN-67-S-4069 precluded its lawful use as an ambulance; there was no fitness certificate, taxes were unpaid and the permit had been cancelled. Thus such use violated provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules.
Given the violations, the Court upheld the Third Respondent's action: the seizure of TN-67-S-4069 on 1-4-2006 was appropriate where required documents and licences were not produced. The Court also noted TN-59-B-4488 had previously been covered by a maxi cab permit in Tirunelveli jurisdiction and that the Regional Transport Officer, Tirunelveli, had not been impleaded.
The Court scrutinised motive and maintainability: upon receiving counter-affidavits the Court observed that the writ petition appeared to be motivated by business/personal rivalry between the Petitioner and the Fifth Respondent rather than pure public interest; the Petitioner had attempted to run an ambulance previously and had multiple criminal cases pending. The Court found the petition to be vexatious and motivated by rivalry.
Given the unlawful use of the goods vehicle as an ambulance and the Petitioner's motive, the Court concluded it could not condone the violation on the basis that the Fifth Respondent rendered free services. The Court further noted that granting relief (such as ordering release) would amount to endorsing unauthorised use.
Because the matter consumed substantial judicial time and reflected personal scores, the Court considered it appropriate to impose costs on both the Petitioner and the Fifth Respondent.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Writ Petition is DISMISSED.

Implications and direct consequences (as explicitly stated in the opinion):

The Court found that the use of the goods vehicle TN-67-S-4069 (and similarly TN-59-B-4488 insofar as it had previously been covered by a maxi cab permit) as an ambulance violated statutory provisions (including rules on classification, alteration, fitness and taxation) and that the Third Respondent was justified in seizing TN-67-S-4069.
The Petitioner and the Fifth Respondent were each directed to pay costs of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Madurai Bench, within four weeks from the date of the order.
The opinion does not discuss or establish any broader legal precedent beyond the direct rulings in this matter; the Court dismissed the petition and addressed only the direct relief and costs in respect of the parties before it.

Order: Petition dismissed.

Show full summary ...

V.N Dharmakrishnan v. Deputy Commissioner Of Transport, Madurai & Ors.

1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the First Respondent himself to conduct an enquiry without insisting upon the Second and Third Respondents to do so with regard to the vehicles bearing Registration Numbers TN-67-S-4069 and TN-59-4488 under the custody of the Fifth Respondent.

2. Case of the Petitioner is that:

The Petitioner is a Councillor for Ward No. 41 in Rajapalayam Municipality. The Fifth Respondent is alleged to have formed “Nanbargal Narpani Mandram”, which according to the Petitioner has been formed with an object to extract money from the Public by illegal means. The Fifth Respondent is having two ambulances in the name of “Mappillai Vinayakar Ambulance Service” with Registration No. TN-67-S-4069 and TN-59-B-4488. Both the vehicles are not properly registered as ambulance. Further, the registration number of the vehicles are also fake. The Fifth Respondent has also not obtained any certificate from the office of the Regional Transport Officer for operating those vehicles as Ambulances. The Fifth Respondent involved in several criminal cases and a case has been registered and he was convicted by Judicial Magistrate III, Srivilliputtur in C.C No. 505 of 1992 on 29-11-1995 and the same has also been confirmed in Crl. Appeal No. 143 of 1995.

3. The vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-67-S-4069 has also met with an accident on 3-11-2005, regarding which, a case has been registered by the Fourth Respondent in Crime No. 724 of 2005 and the Fourth Respondent had not taken any steps to seize the vehicle. The petitioner also sent Telegram to Respondents 2 to 4 about the involvement of the vehicles in the illegal activities. Further, the Petitioner sent legal notice dated 12-11-2005 to Respondents 2 to 4, to which, the Second Respondent sent reply on 1-12-2005 stating that instructions had been given to the officials to watch over the movement of the two vehicles. Hence, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition.

4. The Third Respondent/Motor Vehicles Inspector has filed number of Counter-Affidavits, alleging that the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-67-S-4069 was previously covered by goods carriage permit and the said permit in the name of N.S Ramaraj was also cancelled. The vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-59-B-4488 was previously covered by Maxi Cab at Tirunelveli Jurisdiction. On receipt of the legal notice issued by the Petitioner, officials had been instructed to keep watch over the vehicles. Further counter-affidavit has also been filed stating that the goods vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-67-S-4069 has been used as an Ambulance without proper permit.

5. The Fifth Respondent has filed a Counter-Affidavit referring to number of criminal cases registered against the Petitioner. According to the Fifth Respondent, he and other noble, like minded persons have formed an organisation by name “Dharmapuram Sri Mappillai Vinayagar Kovil Sathurthi Alayam Nanbargal Naprani Mandram” and they have been doing services to the public in Rajapalayam. According to the Fifth Respondent, the Mandram has been helping the public by rendering 24 hours free Ambulance service, blood donation and several other similar social service activities. It is alleged that the Writ Petitioner himself attempted to run an ambulance bearing No. TN-67-Q-1452 - a Mahindra vehicle and his attempt to run Ambulance service failed because of the free Ambulance service rendered by the Fifth Respondent. In the Counter-Affidavit, the Fifth Respondent has also explained the criminal cases registered against him.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and without proper licence, the Fifth Respondent is operating the vehicles as Ambulances. It is further submitted that to the legal notice and to the representation sent by the Petitioner, the First Respondent has not properly responded and hence, the Petitioner filed the Writ Petition.

7. Drawing the attention of the Court to the personal rivalry in operating the ambulance services between the Petitioner and the Fifth Respondent, learned Government Advocate has submitted that after filing of the Writ Petition, action had been taken against the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-67-S-4069 for which, N.S Ramaraj is the permit holder. It is further submitted that the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-59-B-4488 is covered by a permit at Tirunelveli Jurisdiction and that the Respondents 1 to 3 are not in a position to seize that vehicle. Elaborate Counter-Affidavit has been filed by the Third Respondent.

8. Learned counsel for the Fifth Respondent has submitted that the Fifth Respondent has been operating free Ambulance services and the Petitioner has filed the Writ Petition mainly due to the personal rivalry between the petitioner and the Fifth Respondent. It is further submitted that the attempt of the Petitioner to operate another ambulance service has failed because of the free ambulance service rendered by the fifth Respondent and actuated by business rivalry the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

9. The Petitioner has sent Legal Notice on 14-11-2005 complaining about the misuse of the two vehicles bearing Registration Numbers TN-67-S-4069 and TN-59-B-4488 as Ambulances without proper permission. The Petitioner also had made another representation dated 28-11-2005. On receipt of such notice, on instructions from the first Respondent, the Third Respondent has made enquiry at the residence of the Fifth Respondent. It was learnt that TN-67-S-4069 was previously covered by a goods carriage permit and for non-payment of the tax amount, the permit was cancelled. The other vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-59-B-4488 was previously covered by Maxi Cab permit at Tirunelveli Jurisdiction and the permit of the abovesaid vehicle was also cancelled. The Petitioner was informed that instructions had been given to keep watch over the movement of the vehicles.

10. Even after reply, the Petitioner is strenuously pursuing the same by filing the writ petition. The question may arise as to why the Petitioner raises such a hue and cry for the usage of Ambulances operated by the Fifth Respondent.

11. The Petitioner contends that he is interested in protecting the interest of the public since he is a Ward Councillor. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner being a Ward Councillor is interested in proper operation of the vehicles and operation of Ambulance services with all infrastructure. By the arguments advanced, one might gain an impression that the Writ Petition is more in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation. When the Court has asked the Petitioner's Counsel about the locus standi of the Petitioner, learned counsel for the Petitioner replied that the Petitioner is the Ward Councillor and is interested in protecting the Interest of the Public, who are availing the services of Ambulances. When the Court has raised further question as to how such Public Interest Litigation Petition is maintainable before the single Judge, learned counsel for the Petitioner wanted to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition before the Division Bench. Thereafter, the Court directed the Respondents to file their counter-affidavits to take stock of the facts and circumstances. By perusal of the Counter-Affidavit, it came to light that the Writ Petition is nothing but culmination of personal rivalry between the parties and hence, the Court has directed the Petitioner to proceed with the matter (without permitting to the Petitioner to withdraw the writ petition).

12. Even at the outset, it is to be pointed out that the Petitioner himself attempted to run an Ambulance bearing Registration No. TN-67-Q-1452. It is stated that because of the free Ambulance service rendered by Mandram, the Petitioner's attempt to run the Ambulance service failed.

13. The Petitioner is stated as a history sheeted rowdy in H.S No. 26 of 2006. The Petitioner is facing number of criminal cases as under:—

Crime Police Station i. Crime No. 583 of 2002 u/S. 506(i) IPC - Rajapalayam North P.S ii. Crime No. 259 of 2003 u/S. 147, 148, 341 and 506(i) IPC - Rajapalayam South P.S iii Crime No. 769 of 2005 u/S. 341, 342, 323, 294 (b) and 506 (ii) IPC - North P.S iv. Crime No. 36 of 2006 - South P.S v. Crime No. 129 of 2006 u/S. 304-A IPC - Rajapalayam South P.S vi. Five other criminal cases.

14. When the Counter-Affidavit was filed by the Respondents, the criminal antecedents of the Petitioner and the personal rivalry between the parties has been exposed. However, with a view to give quietus to the matter, arguments of the Petitioner and the Respondents were heard.

15. The two vehicles bearing Registration Numbers TN-67-S-4069 and TN-59-B-4488 have been admittedly used as Ambulances by the Fifth Respondent and the alleged “Nanbargal Narpani Mandram”. In the third Counter-Affidavit filed by the Third Respondent, he has traced the registration of the vehicles. One V. Ram Sankar has applied for temporary certificate of registration under Rule 95 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 at R.T.O, Madurai South on 15-6-2001 in which under column No. 1, the classification of the vehicle was shown as “L.M.V Mahindra Delivery Van Goods Carrier”. Later, on 20-6-2001 he applied for permanent registration of a motor vehicle in Form 20 (Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989), in which Column 6 — Class of vehicle was shown as “delivery van, goods carrier” and the same was registered by the Assistant Registering Authority, Srivilliputhur in Registration No. TN-67-S-4069. The owner of the vehicle has paid the tax due only up to 31-3-2004. The permit holder has not paid tax for the quarter ending 30-6-2004. In view of the above circumstance, a show cause notice was issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Virudhunagar on 3-6-2004 and the same was served on the owner of the vehicle on 7-6-2004. Subsequently, no reply was received from the permit holder. As per provision under Section 86(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rules 172(1) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988, the said permit was cancelled by the Regional Transport Authority, Virudhunagar with effect from 25-6-2004 since one owner of the permit holder did not choose to file an appeal against the cancellation order, the order passed by the authority becomes final. Thus, the permit of the goods vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-67-S-4069 had been cancelled with effect from 25-6-2004.

16. The said goods vehicle, for which permit had been cancelled has been used by the Fifth Respondent as Ambulance. Such user is in violation of the provisions of the Rules. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 under Section 41(4), the Central Government under SO 436(4), dated 12-6-1989 provides clarification vehicle and type of motor vehicle.

Motor Vehicle (1) Type of Motor Vehicle (2) 1. Motor cycle Motor Cycle Scooter Moped Motorised Cycle 2. Light Motor vehicle Three wheelers - Passenger vehicle Auto Rickshaw Motorised Cycle Rickshaw Invalid carriage Three wheelers - Passenger vehicle Delivery van Four Wheelers - Passenger vehicle Motor Car Jeep Jeep stage carriage Taxi Taxi cab Ambulances Station wagon Invalid carriage Van Four Wheelers - goods carriage Delivery van

17. “Ambulance” means vehicle specially designed, constructed or modified and equipped and intended to be used for emergency transportation of persons who are sick, injured, wounded or otherwise incapacitated; under Section 56 of the Act with Rule 62 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 stress the requirement of fitness certificate. Further for Ambulance they have to pay the Taxes as per schedule of the Act.

18. The Delivery Van Goods Carrier, cannot be altered as “Ambulance” and the Act does not provide for the same. As per Section 52(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no owner of motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those originally specified by the Manufacturer. In the Notification published in the Government of India Gazette dated 14-8-2000, Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been amended by the Motor Vehicles Act (Amendment) 2000 (Act 27/2000), the Government of India has put ban on conversion/alteration in Motor Vehicles which results in variation of the particular original specified by the manufacturers. In this regard, the Transport Commissioner is also said to have issued a Circular R. No. E1/72414/2000 (Circular No. 23/2001) on 28-5-2001.

19. Thus, there is a clear ban on the alteration of the vehicles. The goods carriage cannot be permitted to use as Ambulance. The goods carriage for which the permit had already been cancelled cannot be permitted to ply either as goods carrier or as ambulance. For the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-67-S-4069, no tax has been paid. There is no fitness certificate. The vehicle which was registered as Goods Vehicle cannot be plied as Ambulance.

20. In the additional-counter affidavit filed by the Third Respondent on 3-4-2006, the Third Respondent has reported about the seizure of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-67-S-4069 on 1-4-2006 at about 1.00 p.m According to the Third Respondent, while he was regularly checking the vehicles, the Fifth Respondent did not produce RC, Insurance Certificate, Tax Token, Insurance Certificate and even the driving licence. Hence, the vehicle was seized and impounded at Srivilliputur Town Police Station.

21. On behalf of the Fifth Respondent, learned counsel contended that the Fifth respondent has been operating free ambulance services and that several public authorities have paid contributions to the operation of Ambulance services and the Narpani Mandram. It is further submitted that the Third Respondent has no right to seize the vehicle and Third Respondent has unauthorisedly seized the vehicle. In this regard, certain allegations were also made against the Second and Third Respondents.

22. The user of the goods vehicle as Ambulance is in clear violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Such violation of the provisions of M.V Act and using the goods carriage as Ambulance, for which the permit had already been cancelled cannot be condoned on the ground that the Fifth Respondent is rendering some free service.

23. In view of the violation of statutory provisions, the Third Respondent had rightly seized the vehicle. The other vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-59-B-4488 was also previously covered by Maxi permit at Tirunelveli jurisdiction and the said permit of that vehicle has also been cancelled. The Regional Transport Officer, Tirunelveli has not been impleaded as a party in this Writ Petition.

24. The writ petition is nothing but a culmination of a business rivalry between the Petitioner and the Fifth Respondent in operating the Ambulance services. The Petitioner himself being a history sheeted rowdy, involved in several criminal cases has filed the writ petition solely due to the business rivalry between himself and the fifth Respondent. A sense of responsibility is to be infused in the mind of the Petitioner by warning to desist from filing such vexatious writ petition and also imposing cost.

25. Though the vehicle is used as Ambulance in violation of Statutory Provisions, learned counsel for the Fifth Respondent tried to justify the same. On behalf of the Fifth Respondent, elaborate arguments were advanced drawing the attention of the Court to several paper clippings and the alleged certificates of appreciation issued to the Mandrarn. Learned counsel for the Fifth Respondent has prayed that the Court may order release of the seized vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-67-S-4069. As discussed earlier, the user of that vehicle is in clear violation of the provisions of the M.V Act. Any such order of release of the vehicle would only amount to endorsing such unauthorised user of the vehicles. The fifth Respondent has used the Court process and wasted judicial time in justifying his illegal act. Hence, like the petitioner, the Fifth Respondent is also to be directed to pay cost.

26. To settle the business rivalry between the parties, this court has to call the matter on a number of hearing dates and precious judicial time has been called upon to be spent in disposing of the matter. In view of vehement arguments advanced setting personal scores, much judicial time is consumed in disposing of the matter. In view of the time consumed in disposing of the matter, it is appropriate to impose cost of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) each on the Petitioner and the Fifth Respondent payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Madurai Bench within a period of four weeks from the date of this order.

27. For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is dismissed. The Petitioner and the Fifth Respondent are directed to pay cost of Rs. 2,500/- Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) each to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Madurai Bench within a period of four weeks from the date of this order.

28. Petition dismissed.

V.N Dharmakrishnan v. Deputy Commissioner Of Transport, Madurai & Ors.

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Third Respondent's (Motor Vehicles Inspector) Arguments / Position

Fifth Respondent's Arguments

Submissions by Government Advocate

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

V.N Dharmakrishnan v. Deputy Commissioner Of Transport, Madurai & Ors.

Comments