Dismissed

B.Bakiyaraj, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC9 Aug 2017WP/21271/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking release of a seized vehicle. Relying on a previous order, the court imposed conditions of deposit of security, proof of ownership, and undertaking to produce the vehicle, directing the authorities to release it upon compliance.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of under conditions: deposit Rs. 25,000, prove ownership, give undertaking; vehicle to be released within two days upon compliance.

B.Bakiyaraj, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.08.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.21271 of 2017

¶6

B.Bakiyaraj ... Petitioner
v.
1 The Revenue Divisional Officer
Chengalpattu
Kancheepuram District
2 The Inspector of Police
Palur Police station
Kancheepuram 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 Tipper Lorry bearing
Registration No.TN 21 AY 0302 which was seized by the 2nd
respondent on 18.07.2017 and thereby consider the
representation dated 20.07.2017.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Punniakoti For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajeswaran Special Government Pleader O R D E R

¶8

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 itself.

¶9

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

¶10

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to release the Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 21 AY 0302 which was seized by the 2nd respondent on 18.07.2017 and thereby consider the representation dated 20.07.2017.

¶11

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:-

¶12

"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:-

¶13

"(i) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) in cash with the first respondent.

¶14

(ii) The petitioner shall produce documents before the first respondent to establish the ownership of the vehicle in question.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(iv) On compliance of the above conditions, the respondent is directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner within two days.

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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".

¶20

It appears that the vehicle of the petitioner was seized on 18.07.2017 on account of a charge levelled against him that he was transporting sand without any valid bill or permission of the Government.

¶21

The petitioner, on the other hand, claims that the sand was transported by him for his personal use and it was required for agricultural purpose 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.

¶22

The petitioner further contends that he had submitted a representation dated 20.07.2017 in this regard to the first 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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and that the representation dated 20.07.2017 is pending consideration before the 1st 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:-

¶26

"(i) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) in cash with the 1st respondent.

¶27

(ii) The petitioner shall produce documents before the 1st respondent to establish the ownership of the vehicle in question.

¶28

(iii) The petitioner shall file an undertaking that he will produce the vehicle in question before the 1st respondent as and when called for and that he will not alienate the vehicle in question till the proceedings initiated are completed.

¶29

(iv) On compliance of the above conditions, the 1st respondent is directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner within two days.

¶30

(v) The 1st respondent shall proceed with the enquiry and pass appropriate orders. The petitioner is also directed to appear and co-operate with the enquiry.

¶31

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Rj
To
1 The Revenue Divisional Officer
Chengalpattu
Kancheepuram District
2 The Inspector of Police
Palur Police station
Kancheepuram District
+1cc to M/S.G.Punniyakotti, Advocate, S.R.No.57225
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.57953
W.P.No.21271 of 2017
GR(CO)
CU(11/08/2017)

¶35

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

B.Bakiyaraj, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Bakiyaraj, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Sulochana Cotton Spinning Vs The Inspector General of

P.Selvi Vs The District Collector

P. Arunkumar Vs The District Collector

Subbayammal, Vs The Regional Manager

C.Kannan, Dr NO.37637 Vs The Transport Commissioner

P.Ramesh, Vs The Senior Divisional