Disposed

P.Muthuraman v. The District Prohibition

Madras HC12 Apr 2017WP/2204/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order confiscating his car for transporting liquor under Article 226. Noting the petitioner had not approached the statutory appellate forum due to non-receipt of the impugned order, the court disposed of the writ and granted liberty to file an appeal within three weeks without questioning limitation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; liberty granted to file an appeal before the concerned appellate forum within three weeks of receipt of this order.

P.Muthuraman Vs The District Prohibition — Madras HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.04.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.2204 of 2017

¶6

and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.2179 & 2180 of 2017

¶8

P.Muthuraman ... Petitioner Vs 1.The District Prohibition Officer cum Addl. Superintendent of Police Prohibition Enforcement Wing Villupuram, Villupuram District. 2.The Inspector of Police Prohibition Enforcement Wing Kottakuppam Police Station Marakkanam Villupuram District. ... Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the 1^st respondent herein relating to his proceedings Na.Ka.No.381/Confiscation/ADSP/VPM/16 dated 05.11.2016 and quash the same and further direct the respondents herein to return the Scorpio car bearing Registration No.TN-65D-5077 to the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Venkatasamy For Respondents : Mr.C.Jagdish Special Government Pleader

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of confiscation of his car bearing Registration No. TN-65-D-5077, on the reason that the same indulged in illicit transporting of liquor.

¶13

Admittedly as against the said order, the petitioner is having Appellate remedy before the Court of Sessions having Jurisdiction as provided under Section 14(5) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. Further it is stated before this Court,

¶14

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

¶15

that the petitioner has not filed such appeal, as the impugned order was not served on him. It is further stated that he came to know about such confiscation order, only when he moved a petition for release of the vehicle before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vanur.

¶16

Heard both sides.

¶17

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the first respondent confiscating the car belonging to him. As he has to approach the concerned Jurisdictional Sessions Court and file an appeal under Section 14(5) of the above said Act, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

¶18

Considering the fact that the petitioner was not issued with the impugned order copy, I am of the view that he must be given an opportunity to file such appeal. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the concerned Appellate Forum as stated supra within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any appeal is filed, the same shall be considered and decided on its own merits and in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To

¶20

1.The District Prohibition Officer cum Addl. Superintendent of Police Prohibition Enforcement Wing Villupuram, Villupuram District.

¶21

The Inspector of Police Prohibition Enforcement Wing Kottakuppam Police Station Marakkanam Villupuram District.

¶22

+1cc to Mr.V.Venkatasamy, Advocate SR.No.22900

¶23

W.P.No.2204 of 2017 AK(CO) GN(21/04/2017)

¶24

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

P.Muthuraman v. The District Prohibition

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Muthuraman v. The District Prohibition

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

B.Vijayan, S/o.Balayayam, Vs The Regional Transport Officer

M/s.Texpert Vs The Commissioner of Customs

V.G.N.Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Tvl.Abarna Pharmacy, Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Fac)

Spahi Projects Pvt. Ltd., rep. Vs The Assistant Commissioner

G.Rajiv Vs The Commercial Tax Officer