Disposed

Transstroy (India) Limited, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC11 Jan 2013WP/1236/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the petitioner's representation for releasing a seized lorry within four weeks. The bench did not examine the merits but ordered administrative action.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks.

Transstroy (India) Limited, Vs the Revenue Divisional… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.1.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR

¶5

Writ Petition No.1236 of 2013

¶6

Transstroy (India) Limited, represented by its Manager, Mr.C.Tamilvanan, No.12, Chengam Road, NH 66, Tindivanam, Krishnagiri High way, Aanai Pirandan Village, Tiruvannamalai District. ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tindivanam. 2.The Deputy Director (Mines), Collectorate Campus, Villupuram. ... Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to release forthwith the Tipper lorry bearing Registration No.TN25AD-5607 as per the representations given by the petitioner dated 9.12.2012 and 24.12.2012.

¶8

This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to release forthwith the Tipper lorry bearing Registration No.TN25-AD-5607 as per the representations given by the petitioner dated 9.12.2012 and 24.12.2012.

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

Mr.N.Srinivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents. By consent the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶11

Petitioner seeks release of vehicle as above which has been seized on 8.12.2012 and has made a request/representation for release of vehicle on 9.2.2012. It appears from the records that the second respondent authority has forwarded the representation to the first respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Tindivanam, to take appropriate action as per law. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner has made a further representation on 24.12.2012 to the first respondent. Since no action has been taken either way, the present writ petition is filed for a mandamus as above.

¶12

The Additional Government Pleader states that if no action has already been taken, the authority will decide the issue on merits within a reasonable period of time as may be directed by this court.

¶13

In view of the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader, without going into the merits of the petitioner's claim, the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation as above, if not already considered, on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

The Writ Petition is ordered as above. No costs.

¶15

Sd/Deputy Registrar. /true copy/

¶16

Sub Asst. Registrar.

¶17

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

¶20

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tindivanam.

¶21

2.The Deputy Director (Mines), Collectorate Campus, Villupuram.

¶22

1 CC to Government Pleader SR 2851

¶23

1 CC To Mr.K.R.Krishnan, Advocate SR NO.2431

¶24

W.P.No.1236 of 2013
bky[co]
gp/22.1

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Transstroy (India) Limited, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Transstroy (India) Limited, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Nakshatra Service Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct

P.Vijayabhaskar, Vs the Tahsildhar

M/S.Caravel Logistics Pvt. Vs the Joint Secretary (Ra)

M/S.Srilakshmi Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Jameel Trading Company Vs the Appellate Assistant

M/S.Anmol Rajendra Parcel Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax