Disposed

M.Sudhakar, S/o.Mani v. The Revenue Divisional

Madras HC11 Dec 2017WP/32018/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondents to release a seized Tipper lorry conditionally. The petitioner must deposit a security amount and prove ownership. Authorities were given three months to pass an order on merits regarding alleged mineral rule violations.

What did the court decide?

Conditionally directed release of the seized lorry upon deposit of Rs.25,000/- security, proof of ownership, and undertaking not to use the vehicle for unlawful purposes.

M.Sudhakar, S/o.Mani Vs The Revenue Divisional — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.12.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

Writ Petition No.32018 of 2017

¶6

M.Sudhakar .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thirukoilur,
Villupuram District,
2. The Tahsildar,
Thirukoilur,
Villupuram District. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus
to direct the respondents to release the Tipper Lorry bearing
Registration No.TN 04 E 0079 which was seized by the second
respondent on 09.11.2017 and thereby consider the representation
dated 10.11.2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sreedharan
For Respondents : Mr.P.Senthilvel,
Government Advocate.
O R D E R

¶8

Mr.P.Senthlvel, learned Government Advocate, 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.

¶9

The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the respondents to release the Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 04 E 0079 which was seized by the second respondent on 09.11.2017 and thereby consider the representation dated 10.11.2017.

¶10

It is stated that the above vehicle was seized by the second respondent on 09.11.2017 on the allegation that the said vehicle was indulged in transporting sand in violation of certain provisions under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession

¶11

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

¶12

Rules, 1959. According to the petitioner, there was no such violation and on the other hand, it was used only for the personal consumption of the petitioner. Needless to say that it is for the authority to consider such claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders and therefore, this Court, at this 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 09.11.2017 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:

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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. The petitioner should also co-operate with the said proceedings initiated by the respondents without dragging the matter.

¶18

(f) If no such order is passed within the time stipulated therein, the amount so paid by

¶19

the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner.

¶20

(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

¶21

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

¶22

can be considered in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶23

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
vsi
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thirukoilur,
Villupuram District,
2. The Tahsildar,
Thirukoilur,
Villupuram District.
+1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 88503.
+1 CC to Mr.R. Sreedharan, advocate sr 87999.
W.P.No.32018 of 2017
SP(15/12/2017)

¶24

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

M.Sudhakar, S/o.Mani v. The Revenue Divisional

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sudhakar, S/o.Mani v. The Revenue Divisional

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

D.Devendiran Vs The District Collector

P.Raman, Vs The Inspector of Police

G.Manoharan Vs Revision Authority/ The

M/s.Sri Mathi Sago Factory Vs The District Designated

R.Arunkumar Vs The Assistant Engineer

Rajesh Muthuraman Vs The Regional Passport