Petitioner challenged seizure of his lorry via writ petition. Court directed release pending deposit, ownership proof, and undertaking, aligning with a prior similar order while noting a pending representation.
Petitioner to deposit Rs. 25,000, produce ownership documents, file undertaking; vehicle to be released within two days upon compliance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.08.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
W.P.No.21029 of 2017
P.Arunkumar
... Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
2.The Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharapuram, Tiruppur District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Dharapuram, Tiruppur District. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 78 B 9489, which was seized by the 3rd respondent on 02.08.2017 and thereby consider the representation dated 02.08.2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ponraj For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajeswaran, Special Government Pleader O R D E R
Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.
2.The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to release the Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 78 B 9489, which was seized by the 3rd respondent on 02.08.2017 and thereby, consider the representation dated 02.08.2017.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court, by order dated 27.02.2017 in W.P.No.4805 of 2017, disposed of the said Writ Petition by imposing some conditions for releasing the vehicle. The relevant portion of the order passed in W.P.No.4805 of 2017 reads as follows:-
"6. Having regard to the fact that the representation dated 24.1.2017 is pending consideration of the 1st respondent, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction, since there will not be any purpose in detaining the subject vehicle for a longer period:-
"(i) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) in cash with the first respondent. (ii) The petitioner shall produce documents before the first respondent to establish the ownership of the vehicle in question.
(iii) The petitioner shall file an undertaking that he will produce the vehicle in question before the respondent as and when called for and that he will not alienate the vehicle in question till the proceedings initiated are completed. (iv) On compliance of the above conditions, the respondent is directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner within two days.
(v) The respondent shall proceed with the enquiry and pass appropriate orders. The petitioner is also directed to appear and co-operate with the enquiry.
(vi) This order for release of vehicle can be availed of by the petitioner if no criminal case is pending. If any criminal case is pending, it is open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate to get release of the vehicle by filing appropriate application and the same can be considered in accordance with law".
4.It appears that the vehicle of the petitioner was seized on 02.08.2017 on account of a charge levelled against him that he was transporting sand without any valid bill or permission of the Government.
5.The petitioner, on the other hand, claims that the lorry was hired for levelling agricultural land and therefore, it would not come within the purview of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. In this regard, the petitioner seeks to place reliance upon Rule 6 of the said Rules.
6.The petitioner further contends that he had submitted representation on 02.08.2017 in this regard to the third respondent and since no order has been passed on such representation, he is constrained to file the present Writ Petition. Further, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the vehicle is kept in open weather, by which the same is getting damaged.
7.Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents submitted that since the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is covered by the earlier order passed by this Court, the same order can be passed in this writ petition also.
8.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and that the representation dated 02.08.2017 is pending consideration before the third respondent, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with the following directions, since there will not be any purpose in detaining the subject vehicle for a longer period:-
"(i) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) in cash with the first respondent.
(ii)The petitioner shall produce documents before the first respondent to establish the ownership of the vehicle in question.
(iii)The petitioner shall file an undertaking that he will produce the vehicle in question before the respondent as and when called for and that he will not alienate the vehicle in question till the proceedings initiated are completed.
(iv)On compliance of the above conditions, the respondent is directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner within two days.
(v) The respondent shall proceed with the enquiry and pass appropriate orders. The petitioner is also directed to appear and co-operate with the enquiry.
(vi) This order for release of vehicle can be availed of by the petitioner if no criminal case is pending. If any criminal case is pending, it is open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate to get release of the vehicle by filing appropriate application and the same can be considered in accordance with law.”
With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS III )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
raa
To
1.The District Collector,
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
2.The Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharapuram, Tiruppur District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Dharapuram, Tiruppur District.
+1cc to Mr.N.Ponraj,Advocate sr.56735
+1cc to Government Pleader sr.57562
W.P.No.21029 of 2017
VGII(co)
ss(11/8/2017)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to issue a writ of mandamus directing the release of a seized lorry pending ownership enquiry and representation consideration.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.No.4805 of 2017Referred¶14
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P. Arunkumar
The District Collector, Tiruppur District
The Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram
The Tahsildar, Dharapuram
M. DURAISWAMY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
