Disposed

Dhanakotti, v. The District Collector

Madras HC18 Apr 2016WP/13230/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to release a seized vehicle. The court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits within two weeks without expressing an opinion on the merits. The petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits within two weeks.

Dhanakotti, Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

W.P.No.13230 of 2016

Dhanakoti

... Petitioner

Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram
Kancheepuram District
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Maduranthagam
Kancheepuram District ... Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to release the vehicle bearing No.TN 21 L9317, Chassis Number:373135FTZ731204, Engine Number; 697TC56FTZ127659.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Milton Arul Rajendran For Respondents : Mr.M.S. Ramesh Additional Government Pleader ORDER

¶11

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to release the vehicle bearing No.TN 21 L9317, Chassis Number:373135FTZ731204, Engine Number; 697TC56FTZ127659.

¶12

It is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner of the lorry bearing No.N 21 L9317 and on 11.03.2016, the said vehicle was seized by the second respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner has given a representation to the second respondent on 15.03.2016 in person, however, the second respondent has not passed any orders in the said representation.

¶13

Mr.M.S. Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the second respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ representation and pass orders in accordance with law within a stipulated time.

¶14

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.03.2016 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶15

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sr
To
1. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram
Kancheepuram District
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Maduranthagam
Kancheepuram District
+1cc to Mr.J.Milton Arul Rajendran, Advocate, S.R.No.24054
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.24205

¶16

W.P.No.13230 of 2016

¶17

PPA(CO) CA(21/04/2016)

¶18

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

Dhanakotti, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanakotti, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tvl.Niro Ceramic India Pvt. Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s.Om Marble & Granites Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

N.Shankar, Vs The Transport Commissioner

M/s.Trinity forwarders Vs The Commissioner of Customs

S.Nalini Vs The Regional Transport

R. Karthik Vs The State Transport Authority