Dismissed

Devadas, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC12 Mar 2015WP(MD)/18534/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge Writ Petition under Article 226 seeks a Mandamus for the release of a seized vehicle. The Court held that the merits need not be examined at that stage. The vehicle was ordered to be released subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000 and complying with specific conditions regarding ownership proof and non-alienation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to release the seized Tarus Lorry (TN 74 W 9387) subject to petitioner depositing Rs. 10,000 and complying with conditions for ownership proof and non-alienation.

Devadas, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12.03.2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.(MD)No.18534 of 2014

DEVADAS

.. Petitioner

Vs.

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PADMANABHAPURAM, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶10

THE TAHSILDAR, VILAVANCODE TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. .. Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to release the Petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 74 W 9387 which was seized by the 2nd Respondent on 21.10.2014 and kept under the custody of the 1st Respondent.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus, to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle namely Tarus Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 74 W 9387.

¶15

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶16

The grievance of the petitioner is that the said vehicle was not involved in any offence as alleged by the respondents and they were used only for lawful purpose. Therefore, for the release of the said vehicle, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶17

In my considered view, all these contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

However, as the vehicle is seized and kept idle, certainly it would diminish the value of the same.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to release the said Tarus Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 74 W 9387, seized by the second respondent on 21.10.2014, to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:-

¶22

“i) The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with the first respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

ii)On deposit of the said amount, the respondents are directed to release the vehicle on the following conditions:-

¶24

(a)The petitioner shall produce before the respondents the relevant documents to establish that he is the ownership of the vehicles;

¶25

(b) He shall execute an affidavit giving undertaking that he will not alienate the vehicle till the completion of the proceedings, if any, initiated against him;

¶26

iii) The respondents are at liberty to initiate proceeding against the petitioner, if the petitioner has violated any of the provisions of the Acts or Rules. But the proceeding has to be taken, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If no action is taken against the petitioner, within the said period, the amount deposited by him shall be returned to him; and

¶27

(iv) The petitioner shall abide by the orders passed by the authority concerned or the respondents.

¶28

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar(Writs)

¶31

/True Copy/

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

¶36

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PADMANABHAPURAM, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶37

THE TAHSILDAR, VILAVANCODE TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶38

+1cc to Mr.C.K.M.Appaji,Advocate Sr.No. 11958 +1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No. 12385 Rj2

¶39

AA/19.03.2015/3p- 5c/

¶40

W.P(MD)No.18534 of 2014

¶41

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

Devadas, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devadas, 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

S. Muthulakshmi Vs the Regional Transport

Pandiappan Vs the Superintending Engiener

S.Arunachalam, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

G.Kulathurai, Vs the Commissioner

Mariammal Vs the Joint Director

A. Sharmila Devi, Vs the Joint Director of