Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka 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