Allowed

K.Mutharasu v. the District Collector

Madras HC13 Apr 2018WP(MD)/7451/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in this writ petition directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to release the petitioner's seized lorry within seven days, subject to the petitioner producing ownership documents, depositing Rs. 25,000, and undertaking not to use the vehicle for illegal activities.

What did the court decide?

Release of the petitioner's lorry within seven days subject to deposit of Rs. 25,000, production of ownership documents, and an undertaking against illegal usage.

K.Mutharasu Vs the District Collector — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.04.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.7451 of 2018

K.Mutharasu

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The District Collector,

¶11

Ramanathapuram District,

¶12

Ramanathapuram.

¶13

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶14

Paramakudi Revenue Division,

¶15

Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶16

3.The Tahsildar,

¶17

Kamuthi Taluk,

¶18

Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

PRAYER : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to release the petitioner's lorry bearing Registration No.TN 72 AR 8672, which is confiscated by the second respondent and to entrust the said lorry to his custody.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Pandi Maharaja For Respondents : Mr.V.Anand Government Advocate

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner seeks for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to release the petitioner's lorry bearing Registration No.TN 72 AR 8672, which is confiscated by the second respondent and to entrust the said lorry to his custody.

¶24

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

¶25

3.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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ certificate books and transport permit for transporting sand.

¶26

¶27

4.In any event, as the vehicle is under the custody of the respondents having been seized on 07.03.2018 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.

¶28

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

¶29

“(i) The petitioner shall produce documents

¶30

before the second respondent under whose custody the vehicle is kept, to establish the ownership of the vehicle in question;

¶31

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

¶32

(iv) On doing so, the vehicle in question shall be returned to the petitioner; (v) The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle in question till the disposal of the proceedings before the authority concerned;

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

6.This writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.

¶36

Sd/ Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True copy/

¶37

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

To:

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶40

¶41

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi Revenue Division, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶42

3.The Tahsildar, Kamuthi Taluk,

¶43

Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶44

+1cc to Mr.R.PANDIMAHARAJA, Advocate, SR.No. 61679

¶45

W.P.(MD) No.7451 of 2018 13.04.2018

¶46

MYR KK/RSK/24.04.2018/SAR-2/3P-5C

¶47

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

K.Mutharasu v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Mutharasu 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

S.Surasangu Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Tmt.K.Vasugi,W/O.Rathakrishnan Vs the Under Secretary to Govt.

Mrs.Indira Vs the Regional Lpg Manager

S.Amsha Vs the Inspector General of

A.Kanagaraj, Vs the Tamil Nadu State

M.Pawankumar Vs the Commissioner