Disposed

G.Kamatchi v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC21 Apr 2017WP/9796/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition seeking release of a seized tipper lorry. It imposed conditions including a security deposit and proof of ownership, directed the authority to decide on merits within three months, and ordered refund if no order is passed.

What did the court decide?

Vehicle released subject to payment of security deposit and proof of ownership; order passed within three months or deposit refunded.

G.Kamatchi Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.04.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.9796 of 2017

¶6

G. Kamatchi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Cheyyar,
Thiruvannamalai District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Cheyyar Police Station,
Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents

¶7

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 Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 25 AW 2074 which was seized by the 2^nd respondent on 16.04.2017 and thereby consider the representation dated 17.04.2017

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr. G. Punniakoti For Respondents : Mr.M.Elumalai, Government Advocate

¶9

Mr.M.Elumalai, lerned 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.

¶10

The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the respondents to release the Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 25 AW 2074 which was seized by the 2^nd respondent on 16.04.2017 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 17.04.2017.

¶11

It is stated that the above said vehicle was seized by the 2nd respondent on 16.04.2017 on the allegation that the said vehicle was indulged in transporting sand without any valid bill or permission

¶12

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

¶13

of the Government in violation of certain provisions under the Tamil Nadu Minor 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 as early as on 16.04.2017 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:

¶14

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 .

¶15

b) The petitioner shall appear in person and produce all the relevant documents proving the ownership of the vehicle Tipper Lorry for verification of the authority in proof of such ownership.

¶16

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

¶17

(d) The petitioner shall not use the said vehicle Tipper Lorry, 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

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶22

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS III )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
vsi/mm
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Cheyyar,
Thiruvannamalai District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Cheyyar Police Station,
Thirucannamalai District.
+1cc to M/s.G.Punniyakotti,Advocate for the petitioner
sr.24239
W.P.No.9796 of 2017
kj(co)
ss(21/4/2017)

¶23

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

G.Kamatchi v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Kamatchi 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

M/s.Pranav Foundation Private Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Mr.N.Lenin Kumar, Vs The District Collector

S.Balamurugan, Vs The Collector

Tvl.Arcot Auto Mobiles, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

A.Perumal, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Le.Viser Pharmaceuticals(P) Vs The Assistant Commissioner