Disposed

E.Srinivasan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC18 Apr 2017WP/9295/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by owner of a tractor-trailer seized for alleged violation of mining rules. Court ordered vehicle release upon deposit of Rs. 25,000 and proof of ownership, subject to final orders on merits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Release of seized tractor-trailer upon deposit of Rs. 25,000 and proof of ownership, subject to order on merits within three months.

E.Srinivasan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.04.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.9295 of 2017

¶6

E. Srinivasan ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District. 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Brammadesam Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents

¶8

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the Tractor with Trailer bearing Registration No. TN 25 BZ 6948 which was seized by the 2^nd respondent on 08.04.2017 and thereby consider the representation dated 09.04.2017.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Punniakoti For Respondents : Mr.M.Elumalai. Government Advocate O R D E R

¶10

Mr.M.Elumalai, 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.

¶11

The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 09.04.2017 for release of Tractor with Trailer bearing Registration No.TN 25 BZ 6948.

¶12

It is stated that the above vehicle, Tractor with trailor was seized by the 2nd respondent on 08.04.2017 on the allegation that the said vehicle was indulged in transporting sand without any valid bill or permission of the Government in violation of certain provisions under the Tamil Nadu Minor

¶13

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

¶14

Mineral Concession 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 on 08.04.2017 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:

¶15

a) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) before the 1st respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order .

¶16

b) The petitioner shall appear in person and produce all the relevant documents proving the ownership of the vehicle, Tractor with Trailer 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, Tractor with Trailer, the respondents shall release the same forthwith.

¶17

(d) The petitioner shall not use the said vehicle, tractor with trailer for any unlawful purpose and also shall not alienate the same during the pendency of the proceedings.

¶18

(e) It is open to the 1st 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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

-s/d-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CSIV)

¶22

True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶23

vsi/rkp

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶27

Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶28

The Sub-Inspector of Police,

¶29

Brammadesam Police Station,

¶30

Thiruvannamalai District.

¶31

+1 cc to M/s.G.Punniyakotti Advocate sr 23187/17

¶32

W.P.No.9295 of 2017
br(co)
aa19/04/2017

¶33

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

E.Srinivasan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Srinivasan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Itdc Cementation India Limited Vs The Joint Commissioner

M/s.Shri Shyama Corporation, Vs Commissioner of Customs

Murugesan Vs The District Collector

Tvl.Aaraa Textiles Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

M/s.Sri Devi Vilas Kalvettu, Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax

Tvl.Navakar Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Commercial Tax Officer