Allowed

Prabhu, v. the District Collector

Madras HC22 Nov 2018WP(MD)/23131/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed for the release of a seized Tarash Lorry. The court directed the release of the vehicle to the petitioner within seven days, subject to producing ownership documents, depositing Rs. 50,000, and undertaking not to use it for illegal activities.

What did the court decide?

Vehicle released to petitioner within 7 days subject to deposit of Rs. 50,000, production of documents, undertaking against illegal use, and participation in enquiry.

Prabhu, Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.11.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.23131 of 2018

Prabhu, S/o.Varheesh

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Pudukkottai. 2. The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals, Pudukkottai District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Illuppur, Pudukkottai District. 4. The Thasildar, Iluppur, Pudukkottai District. 5. The Inspector of Police, Annavasal Police Station, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the petitioner's Tarash Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-75U-4092 and entrust the same to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondents : Mrs.J.Padmavathy Devi Special Government Pleader

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ directing the respondents to release the petitioner's Tarash Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-75-U-4092 and entrust the same to the petitioner.

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

3.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 vehicle is still under the police custody. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed.

¶16

4.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.

¶17

5.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.

¶18

6.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:

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(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;

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ However, it is made clear that if the vehicle involves in the crime second time, the concerned respondent shall not release the vehicle.

¶26

¶27

7.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶29

/True Copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶31

¶32

The District Collector, Pudukkottai. 2. The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals, Pudukkottai District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Illuppur, Pudukkottai District. 4. The Thasildar, Iluppur, Pudukkottai District. 5. The Inspector of Police, Annavasal Police Station, Pudukkottai District. + 1 CC TO Mr.P.GANAPATHI SUBRAMANIAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 96469 + 1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No. 96565 SMN2 TE/BK/SAR-2 : 29/11/2018 : 3P/8C W.P(MD)No.23131 of 2018 22.11.2018

¶33

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

Prabhu, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhu, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Pandiyan Vs the Director

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

T. Vasantha Vs the District Collector

C.Ganesan, Vs the Sub Collector / Revenue

K.Muneeswaran Vs the Commissioner

Mariappan Vs the Inspector General of