Allowed

Muthukumar v. the Assistant Director

Madras HC23 Nov 2018WP(MD)/23348/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a petition seeking release of a seized Tipper lorry. The Court directed the release of the vehicle within 7 days subject to producing ownership documents, depositing Rs.50,000 as non-refundable, giving an undertaking against illegal use, refraining from alienation, and participating in the inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Release of the seized Tipper lorry within 7 days subject to depositing Rs.50,000, producing ownership documents, and giving undertakings regarding usage and inquiry participation.

Muthukumar Vs the Assistant Director — Motor Accident Claims | 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.23348 of 2018

¶4

Muthukumar ... Petitioner

¶5

-Vs.

¶6

1.The Assistant Director, Geology and Mines, Sivagangai District.

¶7

2.The Sub-Collector, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

¶8

3.The Inspector of Police, Chettinadu Police Station, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents and their subordinates to release the Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-AU-8439 seized on 18.09.2018 by the 2^nd respondent and which is now under the custody of the 1^st respondent, to petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh For Respondents : Mr.S.Dhayalan Government Advocate

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-AU-8439 and entrust the same to the petitioner.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

4.On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that the vehicle in question was used for illegal transportation of sand without any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ valid permit and hence, it was seized and the First Information Report was registered.

¶16

¶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 second 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

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

¶26

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

¶27

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III) /True Copy/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶29

¶30

1.The Assistant Director, Geology and Mines, Sivagangai District.

¶31

2.The Sub-Collector,

¶32

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

¶33

Sivagangai District.

¶34

¶35

3.The Inspector of Police, Chettinadu Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶36

+1CC to Mr.D.Venkatesh, Advocate, SR.No.96723

¶37

+1CC to the Special Government Pleader SR.No.96788

¶38

W.P(MD)No.23348 of 2018

¶39

23.11.2018

¶40

¶41

ES/SKN/RSK/SAR 2/30.11.2018/3P/6C

¶42

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

Muthukumar v. the Assistant Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthukumar v. the Assistant Director

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

C.Ganesan, Vs the Sub Collector / Revenue

K.Muneeswaran Vs the Commissioner

Prabhu, Vs the District Collector

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

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

Karuppaiah Vs the Distirict Collector