Dismissed

M.V. Saravanan v. The Revenue Divisional officer

Madras HC1 Sept 2017WP/23696/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought the release of a seized lorry alleged to have been transporting sand without permission. The Court imposed conditions similar to a prior order, requiring deposit of security and compliance with a pending representation before releasing the vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Release of the lorry subject to deposit of Rs.25,000, production of ownership documents, and compliance with a representation already considered by the first respondent.

M.V. Saravanan Vs The Revenue Divisional officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.09.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.23696 of 2017

¶6

M.V.Saravanan ... Petitioner Vs

¶7

The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District.
2. The Assistant Director,
Geology and Mines Department,
Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents

¶8

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 20 AU 4444 which was seized by the 2^nd respondent on 21.08.2017 and thereby consider the representation dated 22.08.2017.

¶9

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

¶10

Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶11

2.The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to release the Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 20 AU 4444 which was seized by the 2^nd respondent on 21.08.2017 and thereby consider the representation dated 22.08.2017.

¶12

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:-

¶13

"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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ following direction, since there will not be any

¶14

purpose in detaining the subject vehicle for a longer period:-

¶15

"(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".

¶16

4.It appears that the vehicle of the petitioner was seized on 21.08.2017 on account of a charge levelled against him that he was transporting sand without any valid bill or permission of the Government.

¶17

5.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.

¶18

6.The petitioner further contends that he had submitted representation on 22.08.2017 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same is getting damaged.

¶19

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.

¶20

8.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and that the representation dated 22.08.2017 is pending consideration before the 1^st 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:-

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.”

¶24

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

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District.

¶32

The Assistant Director, Geology and Mines Department, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.G.Punniyakotti, Advocate, S.R.No.63193

¶34

W.P.No.23696 of 2017
CS IV
CA(04/09/2017)

¶35

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

M.V. Saravanan v. The Revenue Divisional officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.V. Saravanan 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

Lakshmanan Vs The District collector

S.Mahadevan Vs The Assistant Commissioner

S.Arulsamy, Vs The Inspector General of

M.Selvaraj Vs Selvam

Anwar Vs The District Revenue Officer

G.Gunasekaran Vs Sugumar