Allowed

Karuppaiah v. the Distirict Collector

Madras HC23 Nov 2018WP(MD)/23328/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the respondents to release a seized polybag vehicle to the petitioner within seven days. The release was subject to conditions including proof of ownership, deposit of funds, an undertaking against illegal use, participation in enquiries, and a prohibition on alienation until proceedings conclude.

What did the court decide?

Vehicle to be released to petitioner within 7 days subject to deposit of Rs.50,000, proof of ownership, undertaking, and participation in enquiry.

Karuppaiah Vs the Distirict Collector — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.11.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶3

W.P(MD)No.23328 of 2018

¶4

Karuppaiah ... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai. 2.The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals, Pudukkottai District. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Iluppur, Pudukkottai District.

¶7

4.The Tahsildar, Iluppur, Pudukkottai District.

¶8

5.The Inspector of Police, Annavasal Police Station, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 5^th respondent to release the petitioner's Tarash Lorry Bearing Registration No.TN-34S-8362 which was seized by him on 24.09.2018 at Annavasal Main Road, Iluppur Taluk, Pudukkottai District and entrust the same to the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondents : Mrs.J.Padmavathy Devi Spl.Government Pleader

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's Tarash Lorry bearing Registration No. TN-34-S-8362 and entrust the same to the petitioner.

¶13

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

¶14

3.According to the petitioner, the official respondent has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ seized the vehicle in question on the ground that it was involved in transportation of illegal sand without any valid permit and the

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

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 and the First Information Report was registered.

¶18

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.

¶19

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:

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(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;

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

However, it is made clear that if the vehicle involves in the crime for second time, the concerned respondent shall not release the vehicle.

¶27

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

¶28

Sd/

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶30

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

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶32

¶33

¶34

1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai.

¶35

2.The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals, Pudukkottai District.

¶36

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Iluppur, Pudukkottai District. 4.The Tahsildar, Iluppur, Pudukkottai District. 5.The Inspector of Police, Annavasal Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

¶37

+1cc to Mr.P.GANAPATHI SUBRAMANIAN, Advocate, SR.No. 96678 +1cc to M/s.Special Government Pleader,SR.No. 96769

¶38

W.P(MD)No.23328 of 2018

¶39

¶40

KK/PM/SAR-3/30.11.2018/3P-8C

¶41

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

Karuppaiah v. the Distirict Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karuppaiah v. the Distirict 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

C.Ganesan, Vs the Sub Collector / Revenue

K.Muneeswaran Vs the Commissioner

Prabhu, Vs the District Collector

Muthukumar Vs the Assistant Director

Balakumar, S/O. Sakthivel, Vs the Sub Collector/

Dr.N. Selvaraj, S/O. Nallusamy Vs the District Collector