Madras High Court
R.Devaraj vs The Regional Transport Authority on 9 January, 2017
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.01.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.(MD) No.13001 of 2010
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010
R.Devaraj ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Regional Transport Authority,
Regional Transport Office,
Thiruchirappalli District
Thiruchirappalli ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the respondent herein issued in
Memo No.78270/Uo5/2010 dated 14.09.2010 on the file of the respondent and
quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to renew the
Tourist Transport Permit of the petitioner's Tourist Taxi Vehicle (Maruthi
Omni) bearing registration No.TN 45 E 0351 on the application of the
petitioner dated 30.08.2010.
!For Petitioner : Ms.J.Balameenakshi
For Respondents : Mr.V.Muruganandham
Additional Government Pleader
:ORDER
The prayer in the writ petition is for a Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the respondent herein issued in Memo No.78270/Uo5/2010 dated 14.09.2010 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to renew the Tourist Transport Permit of the petitioner's Tourist Taxi Vehicle (Maruthi Omni) bearing registration No.TN 45 E 0351 on the application of the petitioner dated 30.08.2010.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The petitioner claims to or having a Tourist Taxi (Maruti Omni) with registration No.TN 48 E 0351 (Wrongly typed in the prayer as well as in the body of the impugned order of the respondent dated 13.08.2010). For getting renewal of the Tourist permit of the car (Taxi Maruti Omni), the petitioner has approached the respondent. However, as the same was rejected by the impugned order of the respondent dated 14.09.2010, the petitioner, having challenged the same, has come out with the present writ petition.
4. I heard both the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
5. After hearing both sides, this Court directed the respondent to verify as to whether still the petitioner is holding the ownership of the vehicle, as the impugned order was passed in the year 2010 itself. In response to the query raised by this Court, today, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has produced a communication dated 06.01.2017 from the Regional Transport Officer, Trichy in letter No.1549/B3/2017 dated 06.01.2017. The same reads thus:
?I wish to state that, with reference to the telephone message cited, it is ascertained that Thiru.R.Devaraj, S/o.Rengasamy, 75/D, Karungulam, Manapparai, Trichy District has filed the above writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court, Madurai Bench, aggrieved by the order of rejecting the application for renewal of permit in respect of Tourist Taxi TN 48E0351.
The connected file R.No.78270/C5/2010 is not currently available in this office and the affidavit filed by the petitioner is also not received in this office. However, as per the computer date in the office of the Motor Vehicles Inspector Gr.I, Unit Office, Manapparai the petitioner herein has sold the vehicle TN48E0351 and transferred the ownership to Thiru.R.Muthuramalingam, S/o.Rajagopal, Balusamy Street, Ward 15, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District with effect from 04.04.2013 vide R.No.8080/M1/2013 of Unit Office, Manapparai.
As such, the petitioner herein has not pursued the writ petition, and not at all being the owner of the vehicle TN48E0351 right from 04.04.2013.?
6. From the above communication, it become clear that the petitioner has already sold the vehicle during the pendency of the writ petition on 04.04.2013 to one R.Muthuramalingam, S/o.Rajagopal and therefore, the petitioner is no more the owner of the vehicle, for which, the renewal of permit has been rejected through the impugned order of the respondent.
7. The learned Additional Government Pleader would also submit by way of clarification that the vehicle belongs to the petitioner originally having registration NO.TN48 E0351, which is a Tourist Taxi Vehicle (Maruti Omni), however, though in the subject column the said registration number has been rightly mentioned in the impugned order in the body of the impugned order, it has been wrongly mentioned as TN 45 E-0351. Therefore, the same mistake has occurred in the prayer column of the writ petition also. But on verification, it is revealed that the vehicle bearing registration No.TN45E0351 is a two wheeler and actually, the vehicle belong to the petitioner, originally ie., Maruti Omni Tourist Taxi is bearing registration No.TN 48 E 0351 and the same has been verified thoroughly by the respondent Department only pursuant to which, the said communication dated 06.01.2017 has been issued. Therefore, now, it is clear that the petitioner's vehicle (Tourist Taxi Maruti Omni registration No.TN48 E 0351) has already been sold and the ownership itself has been changed to one R.Muthuramalingam, S/o.Rajagopal from 04.04.2013. Therefore, the petitioner, as of now, cannot have any grievance as against the impugned order and literally the prayer sought for in the writ petition, therefore, become infructuous.
8. In view of the aforesaid written instructions submitted by the respondent dated 06.01.2017, after having taken the said instructions on record, this writ petition is dismissed as no further order is necessary. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To The Regional Transport Authority, Regional Transport Office, Thiruchirappalli District Thiruchirappalli .