Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Monitoring and Survey of Vehicles on Unauthorized Use of Official Symbols on Private Vehicles is a Continuous Process – Madras High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a crucial verdict, the Madras High Court affirmed the continuous nature of state responsibilities in the matter of unauthorized stickers and artifacts on private vehicles. “Monitoring and survey of such vehicles is a continuous process,” noted the bench comprising The Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and The Hon’ble Justice Mr. P.D. Audikesavalu.

The petitioner, Dr. Krithika B, sought a writ of Mandamus directing the state authorities to remove unauthorized use of official emblems, phrases, and symbols, such as “Govt of India”, “Government of Tamil Nadu”, “High Court”, and “Police” from private vehicles.

In the judgment, the Court referred to an earlier order in W.P.No.14697 of 2014 that laid down guidelines for preventing such misuse and for penal action against the violators. “The directions given by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid order would take care of the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition also,” said the bench.

During the proceedings, the Additional Public Prosecutor informed the Court that 104,017 private vehicles with unauthorized symbols had been detected so far and a fine of Rs. 16,56,000 had been imposed on the violators.

“Action is required to be taken by the authorities,” the Court observed, emphasizing the continuous need for monitoring such activities. An assurance was also provided by the Additional Government Pleader regarding the state’s commitment to enforcing rules and regulations concerning this issue.

The Court disposed of the writ petition, stating that it stands in light of previous guidelines and steps already taken by the authorities. There was no order as to the costs of the proceedings.

The decision is seen as a significant reinforcement of the state’s ongoing responsibility in curbing the unauthorized use of official symbols and instilling discipline on the road.

For legal inquiries, the petitioner was represented by Mr. Ajay Francis Inigo Loyola, and the respondents were represented by Mr. K.M.D. Muhilan, Additional Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 3, and Mr. R. Muniapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr. C.E. Pratap, Government Advocate for Respondent-4.

Date of Decision:  20.09.2023 

Dr.Krithika B vs The Addl. Chief Secretary

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Dr_Krithika_Vs_Add_Chief_Sec_20Sep23_MadHC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News