Disposed

G.Murali, v. The Sub Collector

Madras HC20 Dec 2017WP/33334/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench order disposing of a writ petition for release of a seized tipper lorry. Court directed petitioner to deposit Rs. 25,000, produce ownership documents, and refrain from unlawful use until authority passes appropriate orders within three months or refunds the deposit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 25,000 and prove ownership; respondent directed to release vehicle forthwith if procedures complied, pending authority's decision within three months.

G.Murali, Vs The Sub Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.12.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.33334 of 2017

¶6

G.Murali ... Petitioner
versus
The Sub Collector,
Hosur,
Krishnagiri District. ...Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to
release the seized Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-43-
8781 seized on 13.12.2017 by the respondent to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.M.Anantha Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.R.Govindasamy
Special Government Pleader
O R D E R

¶7

Mr.R.Govindasamy, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶8

The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the respondent to release the Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-43-8781, which was seized by the respondent on 13.12.2017.

¶9

It is stated that the above vehicle was seized by the respondent on 13.12.2017, on the allegation that the said vehicle was indulged in transporting 3 units of quarry lease crushed stone. 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

¶10

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

¶11

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 13.12.2017 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:

¶12

a) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) before the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶13

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.

¶14

(c) On receipt of payment as stated supra and also on being satisfied with the ownership of the vehicle, the respondent shall release the same forthwith.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(e) It is open to the 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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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

¶19

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

¶20

application and the same can be considered in accordance with law.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mk
To
The Sub Collector,
Hosur,
Krishnagiri District.
+1cc to Mr.G.M.Aantha Kumar, Advocate SR.No.91011
+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.91469
W.P.No.33334 of 2017
GN(22/12/2017)

¶23

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

G.Murali, v. The Sub Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Murali, v. The Sub Collector

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

Sri Nagendra Babu, Vs The Sub collector

Lavanya Vs The District Collector

R.Balasundaram Vs The Commissioner

T.Loganathan, Vs The Inspector of Police

A.Chakkarabani, Vs The Sub Collector/

Kanagaraj Vs The Thasildar