Failure To Collect Electronic Evidence Such As Call Detail Records In Offences Under Section 354 IPC Can Prove Fatal To Prosecution Case: Telangana High Court Mere Pendency Of Challenge To Sale Certificate Before DRT Does Not Bar Mutation Under OSS Rules: Orissa High Court Court May Impose Conditions On Minor’s Custody In Habeas Corpus Proceedings To Protect Best Interest Of Child: Madhya Pradesh High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Cannot Be Rejected For Lack Of Specific Particulars Or Res Judicata At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Surprise Check Without Prior FIR Registration Casts Doubt On Foundational Facts; Uncorroborated Approver Evidence Tainted: Madras High Court Acquits Former Protector Of Emigrants Appointment Of Lambardar | Appellate Authority Remanding Matter Must Not Pre-Judge Merits Of Candidates: Punjab & Haryana High Court Disciplinary Proceedings | Subsequent Deposit Of Embezzled Amount Does Not Exonerate Employee Or Efface Misconduct: Rajasthan High Court Order XXI Rule 37 CPC | Willful Evasion Of Decretal Debt Despite Having Means Justifies Arrest And Detention: Telangana High Court Claims For Recovery Of Stridhan Must Be Substantiated By Cogent Evidence, Not Merely Oral Assertion: Kerala High Court Concurrent Findings Of Fact Regarding Unproved Oral Family Settlement Cannot Be Re-Appreciated In Second Appeal: Punjab And Haryana High Court Limitation Act | Governmental Bureaucratic Delays Without Acceptable Explanation Cannot Be A Ground For Condoning Delay Under Section 5: Telangana High Court Constitutional Courts Should Refrain From Fixing Time-Bound Schedules For Disposal Of Cases In Lower Courts: Jharkhand High Court Industrial Tribunal Cannot Bypass Adjudication Of Domestic Enquiry Validity In Termination Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 106 Indian Evidence Act Cannot Shift Burden To Accused Unless Prosecution Establishes A Prima Facie Case: Allahabad High Court NDPS Act | Criminal Antecedents And Stage Of Investigation Are Decisive Factors For Grant Of Bail Under Section 480 BNSS: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cannot Dismember An Existing Factory: Bombay High Court Quashes BMC Notices To Acquire Private Land Under Section 299 MMC Act Order 21 Rule 32 CPC | Proof Of Violation By Way Of Expert Evidence Regarding Age Of Construction Is Mandatory: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 34 Arbitration And Conciliation Act | Court Cannot Re-appreciate Evidence, But Award Lacking Reasoning And Basis Is Patently Illegal: Calcutta High Court Section 175(3) & (4) BNSS | Magistrate Cannot Pass Mechanical Orders For FIR Registration Against Public Servants Without Complying With Statutory Safeguards: Allahabad High Court Section 69 Indian Succession Act | Provision For Automatic Revocation Of Will Upon Marriage Is Not Violative Of Article 14 Or 15 Of The Constitution: Kerala High Court Unilateral Cancellation Of Registered Gift Deed Without Civil Court Decree Is Void Ab-Initio: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inter-District Transfer Of Teachers Cannot Be Claimed As A Matter Of Right By Jeopardizing Student-Teacher Ratio: Supreme Court Judicial Misconduct | Threatening To Sleep On Pavement To Demand Official Accommodation Constitutes Grave Misconduct Disentitling A Judge From Service: Gujarat High Court Guardians And Wards Act | Father’s Declaration Of Having ‘No Children’ In Matrimonial Profile Disentitles Him To Custody: Madras High Court NDPS Act | Failure To Comply With Section 52A And Unexplained Delay In Forensic Sampling Vitiates Prosecution Case: Patna 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