Dismissed

Thiru.G.Govindasamy, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC18 Jan 2013WP/1375/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ petition seeking release of a seized vehicle. Due to lack of proof for filing the representation, the Court directed the petitioner to submit the request and a copy of the order to the first respondent for consideration on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to submit request/representation and copy of order to first respondent for consideration on merits.

Thiru.G.Govindasamy, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.1.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR

¶5

Writ Petition No.1375 of 2013

¶6

Thiru G.Govindasamy, ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Krishnagiri,
Krishnagiri District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Pochampalli Office,
Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents to release the Ashok Leyland Heavy Goods Vehicle bearing
Registration No.TN-24-K-0168 seized by the second respondent and
retained in his office from 28.12.2012.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan,
For Respondents : Mr.N.Srinivasan,
Additional Government Pleader.
O R D E R
This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus,
directing the respondents to release the Ashok Leyland Heavy Goods
Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-24-K-0168 seized by the second
respondent and retained them into his office on 28.12.2012.

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

Petitioner states that he has given a request/representation dated 29.12.2012 to the first respondent praying to release the vehicle. Since the same has not been considered, the writ petition has been filed.

¶10

An objection has been raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader and stated that there is no proof for filling the said request/representation.

¶11

In such view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to submit a request/representation to the first respondent along with a copy of this order. On receipt of such request/representation, the first respondent shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law.

¶12

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
Sd/-
Asst. Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar.
ts
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Krishnagiri,
Krishnagiri District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Pochampalli Office,
Krishnagiri District.
1 cc To Mr.E.Kannadasan Advocate Sr.3256.
+1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.3389.
W.P.No.1375 of 2013

¶13

tej(Co) rtk24.01.13

¶14

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

Thiru.G.Govindasamy, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thiru.G.Govindasamy, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

N.v.Rukmani Bai, Vs the Commissioner of

Jameel Trading Company Vs the Appellate Assistant

M.R.Uma Maheswari Vs the District Collector

M/S.Sakar Brick Works Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Tvl. Supreme Industries Ltd., Vs the Authority for