Allowed

Mrs.K.Nagarathinam v. the District Collector

Madras HC18 Aug 2014WP/2541/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition and quashed the respondent's order levying seignorage and penalty on a lorry owner who transported granite stones under a hire agreement, holding the petitioner had no nexus to the mineral carriage violation.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issued to call for records and quash proceedings bearing ROC No.1926/2003 (Mines) dated 24.01.2004.

Mrs.K.Nagarathinam Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.08.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN

¶5

W.P.No.2541 of 2004

¶6

K.Nagarathinam ... Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri. ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondents's proceedings bearing R.O.C.No.1926/2003 (Mines), dated 24.01.2004 and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy For Respondent : Mr.M.S.Ramesh (Additional Government Pleader) O R D E R

¶11

The petitioner submits that she is the owner of a lorry bearing registration No.TN29C-6126, which has been purchased by her under hire purchase agreement and her family's livelihood depends upon the hire income of the said lorry and she is using the said lorry for transporting all kinds of goods. That on 11.10.2003, her lorry was hired for a hire charge of Rs.8,000/- by one Chandramohan of Velampatty Taluk, Krishnagiri Taluk, Dharmapuri District, for transporting four pieces of undressed small granite stones, measuring about 4 to 5 CBM, from M/s.Rani Granites Quarry situated at Nagamangalam Village to M/s.Archana Granites Factory, situated at Kuppam Village, Andhra Pradesh. She understood that the said Chadramohan has informed her driver Gopi that he will be following the vehicle with all necessary transport permits and other related documents on a two wheeler. Based on the said assurance, her driver was proceeding with the said materials and when the lorry reached Madhampatty Village near Krishnagiri of Dharmapuri District, the respondent intercepted the said lorry and seized it for not carrying necessary documents to transport the said materials. When the driver looked for the said Chandramohan, who was following the vehicle on a two wheeler, he was not anywhere

¶12

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

¶13

near the said lorry and only at that moment her driver realized that the said Chandramohan has not brought the transport permits and seigniorage was not paid.

¶14

Further, she submits that she is only a transporter and she is neither the owner of the said material nor responsible for non-payment of the seigniorage and for no fault of her, the said lorry has been detained by the respondent from 11.10.2003. Though her representative went and requested the respondent to release the said vehicle by off loading the said granite stones, the respondent declined to release the vehicle and insisted to produce the owner of the said mineral. That apart, though they have pleaded their inability to produce the owner of the mineral and requested to detain the mineral, the respondent declined to release the vehicle and insisted to produce the owner Chandramohan. She is only the owner of the vehicle and the goods under transport by the said vehicle are nothing but granite stones and for transporting the said stones, there is no prohibition whatsoever and she has not committed any offence except accepting to transport the said stones on bona fide belief that the owner of the mineral is carrying the documents, who was following the vehicle, till the vehicle was intercepted by the respondent. The said vehicle was not involved in any offence and there is no such history previously and she is a law abiding and peace loving citizen. On bonafide belief that the owner of the mineral is possessing all the relevant documents, the vehicle was allowed to transport the said mineral.

¶15

She further submits that aggrieved by the said action of the respondent, she filed a writ petition in W.P.No.29322 of 2003 before this Court and this Court by order, dated 20.10.2003, directed the respondents therein to release the said vehicle and pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the said vehicle was released by off-loading the granite stones and the said granite stones are lying in the office of the Tahsildar, Krishnagiri as she is not the owner of the said stones. In such circumstances, the respondent sent a letter, dated 05.01.2004 asking her for personal hearing without any show cause notice and she appeared on 05.01.2004 for enquiry and reiterated the facts. After enquiry, the respondent insisted her to sign a statement, which was prepared by the Assistant Director of Geology and mining, without disclosing the contents of the said statements and without giving her any copy of the said statement. After hearing the above said factual aspects, the respondent advised her not to allow the vehicle in future for such transport and warn the driver suitably. However, the respondent sent the impugned order, dated 24.01.2004, to her levying and demanding a total sum of Rs.1,27,040/- alleging that the same is the seigniorage and 15 times penalty over and above the seigniorage.

¶16

Further, she submits that she is not the owner of the said granite stones and no show cause notice was issued to her before

¶17

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

¶18

calling her for personal hearing. Whatever the facts she has stated in her affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.29322 of 2003 has been reiterated by her before the respondent on 05.01.2004. She has neither admitted the offence nor accepted for compounding the offence. When she did not commit any offence except giving on hire her vehicle, there is no question of herself admitting the offence. Without even establishing the ownership of the said granite stones, the respondent has passed the impugned order as if she is the owner of the said granite stones. In spite of the said statements and denial of the said allegations, without conducting any enquiry, the respondent passed the impugned order and demanded a sum of Rs.1,27,040/- from her. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 24.01.2004, passed by the respondent, she has filed this writ petition, seeking the relief as stated above.

¶19

The highly competent counsel Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing registration No.TN29C6126. The said lorry had been purchased under the hire purchase agreement and the said vehicle is being used as a heavy goods vehicle. On 11.10.2003, the vehicle was hired by one Mr.Chandramohan, for transporting four pieces of undressed Granite Stones from Nagamangalam Village to Kuppam Village of Andhra Pradesh. The driver of the hirer informed to the petitioner stating that for transporting the undressed stones, he has necessary documents. When the vehicle was nearing Krishnagiri, the respondent herein intercepted the lorry and seized it, since the driver had not possessed necessary documents including transport permit to transport the said materials.

¶20

The very competent counsel Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner is neither the owner of the material nor responsible for non payment of Seignorage fee. Further, she has not committed irregularities in the said transaction and she is an innocent woman. However, the petitioner's requested the respondent to release the vehicle but the same was declined. The petitioner is not claiming the undressed granite stones from the respondent but she is claiming her lorry, which is operating on the strength of necessary documents. Further, the vehicle has been involved in any offence earlier. Further, the petitioner has moved in W.P.No.29322 of 2003 before this Court and the same was allowed at the admission stage and the respondent was directed to release the vehicle alone except undressed granite stones. This clearly proves that the petitioner is innocent and she has no nexus with the undressed stone materials. Therefore, the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent is not appropriate in the instant case. Since, the enquiry is only regarding undressed granite stone and not about lorry. As per this Courts order passed in W.P.No.29322 of 2003, dated 20.10.2003, the petitioner has been detached from the said proceedings.

¶21

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

¶22

The very competent Additional Government Pleader Mr.M.S.Ramesh, vehemently argued that the respondent had issued notice for personal hearing in order to determine the veracity of the case, since the lorry bearing registration No.TN29C-6126 belongs to the petitioner. The said lorry had transported 5.040 cubic meters coloured granite block without transport permit. Therefore, the petitioner's presence is absolutely necessary to prove the hiring of vehicle to one Mr.Chidambaram as alleged by her. As per the Tamil Nadu Mines and Mineral Concession Rules, all the vehicles used for transporting any mineral from any area shall be in possession of the individual dispatch slip for the quantity of the minerals available in the vehicle at the time of transportation of mineral. In the instant case, the driver of the lorry had not produced dispatch slip. As such, it has been construed as violation of rules.

¶23

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the typed set of papers, this Court is of the view that the petitioner had moved in W.P.No.29322 of 2003 with a direction to the respondent to release the lorry bearing registration No.TN29C6126 after unloading the undressed granite stones measuring to an extent of 5.040 cubic meters. As such, the petitioner has no nexus with the said coloured granite blocks which had been carried in the said lorry. Therefore, the above writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the respondent's proceedings bearing ROC No.1926/2003 (Mines), dated 24.01.2004 is quashed. No costs.

¶24

Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS V ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar ub To The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri. W.P.No.2541 of 2004 pur(co) kra(24/07)

¶25

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

Mrs.K.Nagarathinam v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.K.Nagarathinam v. the District Collector

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

D.Ravichandran Vs the Chairman

D. Yuvaraja Vs State of Tamilnadu

M/S Amman Granites Vs State of Tamilnadu

R.Gajalakshmi Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Government Film and Tv Vs State Rep.by Its Secretary

R.Ganesh Sing, Vs the Special Commissioner and