1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.9869 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 S.Yesudhas : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Regional Transport Officer, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. 2.The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Regional Transport Office, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to release the vehicle of the petitioner Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN-74-Y-2738 on production of all the material documents in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Russel Raj For Respondents : Mr.S.Chandrasekar Government Advocate ORDER Mr.S.Chandrasekar, learned Government Advocate, who took notice on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the Regional Transport Authority, Kanyakumari District, Marthandam, in his proceedings dated 27.08.2011, has issued a show cause notice as to why the permit of the petitioner's vehicle, Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN-74-Y-2738, should not be suspended, under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the following irregularities: “Permit, Registration Certificate and Insurance Coverage were not produced during check.” He has further stated that an explanation has been sought for from the petitioner, within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which, appropriate orders would be issued. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to controvert the said statement, as the show cause notice stated supra has been issued only recently. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the statutory provisions, Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 206 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, it is open to the Regional Transport Authority, Kanyakumari District, Marthandam, to suspend or cancel the permit, as the case may be, depending upon the facts and circumstances and the gravity of the violations noticed. A reading of the above statutory provisions also makes it clear that if the petitioner comes forward to produce necessary documents and seeks for release of the vehicle, by opting for compounding, the Transport Authority can verify the documents and if they are found to be genuine, can order release of the vehicle, instead of unnecessarily keeping the vehicle under custody. 4. In view of the subsequent development, i.e., issuance of a show cause notice dated 27.08.2011, the petitioner is directed to submit his explanation to the above said notice and produce all necessary documents before the authority concerned. For the abovesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to issue any Mandamus as sought for in the Writ Petition. However, the Regional Transport Authority, Kanyakumari District, Marthandam, who is not made as a party in the Writ Petition, is directed to pass orders, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the explanation from the petitioner. While doing so, the said authority is directed to consider the above referred statutory provisions. 5. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Regional Transport Officer, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. 2.The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Regional Transport Office, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. Order made in W.P.(MD).No.9869 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Dated:- 30.08.2011 rj2/ns NSV/7.9.11/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/