AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Banumathi, J.—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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 stand 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).
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.
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 -Rajapalayam NorthP.S.
u/s 506(i)
IPC
ii. Crime No. 259 of 2003 -Rajapalayam South P.S.
u/s 147, 148,
341 and 506(i) IPC
iii. Crime No. 769 of 2005 - North P.S.
u/s 341, 342,
323, 294 (b) and 506 (ii)
IPC
iv. Crime No. 36 of 2006 - South P.S.
v. Crime No. 129 of 2006 - Rajapalayam South P.S.
u/s 304A IPC
vi. Five other criminal cases.
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.
The two vehicles bearing Registration Numbers TN-67-S-4069 and TN-59-B4488 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 u/s 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
25.6.004.
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 u/s 41(4), the Central Government under SO 436(4), dated 12-6-1989 provides
clarification vehicle and type of motor vehicle.
Motor Vehicle Type of Motor Vehicle
(1) (2)
Motorcycle Motor Cycle
Scooter
Moped
Motorised Cycle
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
""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; u/s 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.
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. El/72414/2000 (Circular No. 23/2001) on 28-5-2001.
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.
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 Srivilliputtur Town Police Station.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Though the vehicle is used at. 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 Mandram. 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.
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.
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.