Disposed

P.Sukumar v. The Revenue Divisional

Madras HC10 May 2017WP/12410/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought release of a seized lorry alleged to be involved in sand transportation. Court ordered deposit of Rs.25,000, production of ownership documents, and release forthwith on satisfaction, subject to police initiating proceedings within three months.

What did the court decide?

Release the seized lorry upon deposit of Rs.25,000 and production of ownership documents, subject to authority initiating proceeds within three months.

P.Sukumar Vs The Revenue Divisional — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.05.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.12410 of 2017

¶6

P.Sukumar ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District. 2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sriperumputhur Police Station, Kancheepuram District, Crime No.57 of 2017 ... Respondents

¶9

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to release the Vehicle (Lorry) bearing Reg.No.TN-73-W-2413 pursuant to the respresentation dated 08.05.2017.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Muruganantham For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai Special Government Pleader

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Mr. M.A.N.Thambidurai, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶13

The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus, directing the fist respondent to release a Lorry bearing Registration No.TN73-W-2413, seized by the first respondent on 27.01.2017.

¶14

It is stated that the above said vehicle wase seized by the first respondent on 27.01.2017, on the allegation that the said vehicle was indulged in transporting sand in violation of certain provisions under Sections 379 and 430 of IPC.

¶15

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

¶16

According to the petitioner, he has engaged a driver to operate the vehicle and he has given strict instruction to the driver that the vehicle has to be used for only lawful purposes and shall not be misused. It is further stated that the above referred vehicle was taken out by the driver and he did not return the vehicle back and on search the petitioner came to know that the vehicle involved in the said offence.

¶17

In the said circumstances, the petitioner made a representation dated 08.05.2017 and the same was received by the first respondent, even then the first respondent did not consider the same. Needless to say that it is for the authority to consider such claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders and therefore, this Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the claim made by the petitioner. However, considering the fact that the vehicle was seized as early as on 27.01.2017 and the same is kept idle thereby exposing it to sun and rain, which undoubtedly would diminish its value, this Court is of the view that the following order will protect the interest of both parties:

¶18

(a) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand), before the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

(b) The petitioner shall appear in person and produce all the relevant documents proving the ownership of the vehicle for verification of the authority in proof of such ownership.

¶20

(c) On receipt of payment as stated supra and also on being satisfied with the ownership of the vehicle, the respondents shall release the same forthwith.

¶21

(d) The petitioner shall not use the said vehicle for any unlawful purpose and also shall not alienate the same during the pendency of the proceedings.

¶22

(e) It is open to the first respondent to initiate proceedings in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

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

¶24

(f) If no such order is passed within the time stipulated therein, the amount so paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner.

¶25

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶26

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Sriperumputhur Police Station,
Kancheepuram District.
+1cc to Mr.T.Muruganantham, Advocate Sr.37165
W.P. No.12410 of 2017
mg[co]
srg 24/05/2017

¶27

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

P.Sukumar v. The Revenue Divisional

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sukumar v. The Revenue Divisional

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Dayanand Vs K.Hemavathi

debts of Mr.S.Ramachandran Vs

N.Sekar Vs a.Shanmugam

P.Suseela Vs P.Pradeesh Kumar

M/s.Cotton House Vs New Cotton House

P.Shanmugam, S/o.Palanisamy Vs The Superintendent of Police