Court ordered release of seized vehicle upon deposit of security and proof of ownership. Issue of mineral violation deferred to authority. Authorities barred from exceeding three months to decide on merits.
Deposit of Rs. 25,000; proof of ownership; release of seized vehicle; authority to decide on merits within three months.
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 : 04.12.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
Writ Petition No.31237 of 2017
B.Sudhakar S/o.Bhoopathy .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Chengalpattu
Kancheepuram District.
2.The Tahsildar
Chengalpet Taluk
Kancheepuram District. .. Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the TATA ACE bearing Registration No.TN 18 S 6916 which was seized by the 2nd respondent on 20.10.2017 and thereby consider the representation dated 30.10.2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Punniakoti For Respondents : Mr.R.Govindasamy Special Government Pleader O R D E R
Mr.R.Govindasamy, 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.
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 20.10.2017 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:
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.
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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(g) This order for release of the vehicle can be availed of by the petitioner, if the vehicle is not in the custody of criminal Court. If the vehicle is in the custody of the criminal Court, 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.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Sd/-
Deputy Registrar
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
W.P.No.31237 of 2017
GN(06/12/2017)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the seized vehicle should be released on depositing security and proving ownership
Whether a short time limit for authorities to pass orders on merits can compel their action
2 provisions across 2 enactments
B.Sudhakar
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu
The Tahsildar, Chengalpet Taluk
K.Ravichandrababu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
