Allowed

V.Arunkumar v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC16 Oct 2018WP(MD)/21644/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing respondents to release a seized lorry pending proceedings. The release was conditioned on deposit of a security sum, production of ownership documents, and an undertaking against illegal use, with a direction to complete the inquiry within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to release the vehicle within seven days subject to deposit of Rs.25,000, production of ownership documents, and undertaking against illegal use.

V.Arunkumar Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.10.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.21644 of 2018

¶7

V.Arunkumar .. Petitioner Vs.

¶8

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶9

2.The Tahsildar, Oddanchatram Taluk, Dindigul District. ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the petitioner's lorry bearing registration number TN.37 BQ 6777.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.Sureshkumar For Respondents : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah Government Advocate

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner seeks for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the his lorry bearing registration number TN.37 BQ 6777, seized on 25.08.2018 by the second respondent.

¶13

According to the petitioner, even though his driver had plied the aforesaid vehicle with all relevant documents, the second respondent has seized the vehicle.

¶14

On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that the vehicle was seized as the same was plied without valid papers, including registration certificate books and transport permit for transporting sand.

¶15

In any event, as the vehicle is under the custody of the respondents having been seized on 25.08.2018 and considering the fact that if the same is allowed to be kept idle by exposing the same to sun and rain, it would certainly diminish its value. Therefore, pending proceedings before the respondents, this Court is of the view that the vehicle can be released by imposing certain conditions on the petitioner for release of the aforesaid vehicle.

¶16

Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to release the vehicle in question to the petitioner within a period of seven days https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order subject to the following conditions:

¶17

¶18

“(i) The petitioner shall produce documents before the first respondent under whose custody the vehicle is kept, to establish the ownership of the vehicle in question;

¶19

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

¶20

(iii) The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will not use the vehicle for any illegal activities in future and shall produce the same as and when required by the respondents;

¶21

(iv) On doing so, the vehicle in question shall be returned to the petitioner;

¶22

(v) The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle in question till the disposal of the proceedings before the authority concerned;

¶23

(vi) The concerned Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to complete the enquiry within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and

¶24

(vii) The petitioner is also directed to participate in the enquiry to be conducted by the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer.”

¶25

The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶29

akv/TM

¶30

To:

¶31

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶32

2.The Tahsildar, Oddanchatram Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.S.R.Suresh Kumar,Advocate in SR No.90951

¶34

+1cc to The Spl Government Pleader in SR No.90968

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.21644 of 2018

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ NM/RP/SAR IV/17.10.18/2P/4C

V.Arunkumar v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Arunkumar 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

P.Udhayashankar Vs the Commissioner

R.Kavitha Vs The Secretary

D. Vadivel Vs The Commissioner

S.Shanmugavel, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

V.Sumathi, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Durairaj, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer