Disposed

R.Muthu Mari, W/O.Rajakannu v. the District Collector

Madras HC20 Nov 2018WP(MD)/23072/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the respondents to release a Tipper lorry seized for illegal sand transport. The order set conditions including ownership proof, a non-refundable deposit, an undertaking against illegal use, and participation in the inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release the seized vehicle within 7 days subject to depositing Rs. 50,000, producing ownership documents, and undertaking not to use the vehicle illegally.

R.Muthu Mari, W/O.Rajakannu Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED 20.11.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.23072 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)No.20972 of 2018

¶7

R.Muthu mari ..Petitioner /Vs./

¶8

1.The District Collector, Ramnad District, Ramnad.

¶9

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, Ramnad District.

¶10

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kovilankulam Police Station, Ramnad District. ..Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent herein to pass appropriate orders to release the Tipper Lorry of the petitioner bearing Registration No.TN-65-AW-2445.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mrs.Lakshmi Gopinathan For M/s.Polax legal solutions For Respondents : Mr.B.Bagavathy Special Government Pleader

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle ie., Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-65-AW-2445.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶16

According to the petitioner, the official respondent has seized the vehicle in question on the ground that it was involved in transportation of illegal sand without any valid permit and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vehicle is still under the police custody. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed.

¶17

¶18

On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that the vehicle in question was used for illegal transportation of sand without any valid permit and hence, it was seized.

¶19

In any event, as the vehicle is under the custody of the official respondent from the date of seizing 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, this Court is of the view that the vehicle may be released by imposing conditions on the petitioner for release of the same.

¶20

Accordingly, the concerned respondent is directed to release the vehicle in question to the petitioner within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order subject to the following conditions:

¶21

“(i) The petitioner shall produce necessary documents before the concerned respondent to establish the ownership of the vehicle in question;

¶22

(ii) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), before the respondent as non refundable deposit;

¶23

(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;

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(vi) The petitioner is also directed to participate in the enquiry to be conducted by the respondent.”

¶27

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

¶33

1.The District Collector,

¶34

Ramnad District, Ramnad.

¶35

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, Ramnad District.

¶36

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kovilankulam Police Station, Ramnad District.

¶37

+1 CC To MR.POLAX LEGAL SOLUTIONS, Advocate SR. NO. 96078 +1 CC TO The Special Government Pleader SR.NO. 96016

¶38

W.P(MD)No.23072 of 2018 20.11.2018

¶39

¶40

TR/SKN/SAR-IV(23.11.2018)3P 6C

¶41

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

R.Muthu Mari, W/O.Rajakannu v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Muthu Mari, W/O.Rajakannu v. the District 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

L.S.Mills Limited Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Sevugan, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Rengarajan, Vs the District Collector

R. Pandiyan Vs the Director

Mumtaj Begum, W/O.Late Vs the Branch Manager

T. Vasantha Vs the District Collector