Disposed

R.Sasikumar, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC14 Feb 2018WP/3175/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, at the admission stage, directed the respondents to release the seized truck van upon receipt of security and proof of ownership by the petitioner. The authority was allowed three months to initiate proceedings on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directing release of the seized vehicle upon deposit of Rs. 25,000 and production of proof of ownership; authority to decide on merits within three months with refund of deposit if no order passed.

R.Sasikumar, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

Writ Petition No.3175 of 2018

¶6

R.Sasikumar S/o.Ramasamy .. Petitioner

¶7

versus 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District. 2.The Tashildar Chetpet, Thiruvannamalai District. .. Respondents

¶8

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 BOLIRO MAXX TRUCK Van bearing Registration No.TN 23 BZ 0101 which was seized by the 2nd respondent on 27.12.2017 and thereby consider the representation dated 05.01.2018.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Punniakoti

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.E.Balamurugan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R

¶11

Mr.E.Balamurugan, learned Additional 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.

¶12

The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the respondents to release the BOLIRO MAXX TRUCK Van bearing Registration No.TN 23 BZ 0101, which was seized by the 2nd respondent on 27.12.2017.

¶13

It is stated that the above vehicle was seized by the second respondent on 27.12.2017 on the allegation that the said vehicle was indulged in transporting sand in violation of certain provisions under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession

¶14

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

¶15

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 27.12.2017 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:

¶16

a) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) before the first respondent within a period of

¶17

two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(e) It is open to the respondents 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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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

¶24

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

¶25

approach the jurisdictional Magistrate to get release of the vehicle by filing appropriate application and the same can be considered in accordance with law.

¶26

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar
mk
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Cheyyar,
Thiruvannamalai District.
2.The Tashildar
Chetpet,
Thiruvannamalai District.
+1cc to Mr.G.Punniyakotti, Advocate, S.R.No.11337
W.P.No.3175 of 2018
KAN(CO)
RRK(15/02/2018)

¶31

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

R.Sasikumar, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sasikumar, 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

S.Poongavanam, Vs The District Collector

M/s.Savitha Devi Vs The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies

J.Krishnakumar, Vs The Sub Collector

J.Krishnakumar, Vs The Commissioner

A.Senthil, Vs Inspector of Police

Ambayiram, Vs The Revenue Tahsildar