Ocular Evidence Prevails Over Medical Findings: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Despite Negative Semen Report & Police Lapses High Court Cannot Pass Inconsistent Orders: Supreme Court Quashes Demolition Order Passed Despite Earlier Restraint In CMDA Regularisation Dispute Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Open University Degrees Obtained Prior To 2017 Cut-Off Must Be A Polluter Before Being Held Absolutely Liable: Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Order Against Art Of Living Over Yamuna Event, Orders ₹5 Cr Refund Father Cannot Be Deprived Of Minor's Custody Unless Proved Unfit: Allahabad High Court Hands Over 4-Yr-Old Child To Father, Sets Aside Trial Court Order Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Integral To Personal Liberty': Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail As 24 Witnesses Remain Unexamined No Specific Chemical Opinion That Seized Substance Was Ganja: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Under Section 2(iii)(b) NDPS Act Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Simplicitor No Ground For Externment': Karnataka High Court Quashes Raichur SDM Order Order VI Rule 16 CPC | Defendants Enjoy Greater Latitude In Altering Defence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Explains Doctrinal Leeway Under CPC Boarding Running Train Not Self-Inflicted Injury: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Denying Compensation Possession Of One Co-Sharer Is Possession Of All: J&K&L High Court Cannot Invoke Article 226 For Registering FIR Or Restoring Water Supply: Kerala High Court Natural Guardian's Sale Of Minor's Property Without Court Nod Is Voidable, Extinguishes If Not Challenged Within 3 Years Of Majority: Madras High Court Orissa High Court Rejects Cancer-Survivor Husband's Plea To Transfer Maintenance Case Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Defect In Served Copy Of Affidavit Not Fatal: Supreme Court Restores Election Petition Challenging Lok Sabha Poll Result, Clarifies Law On Form-25 Attestation

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