Allowed

Mekala v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC18 Jun 2019WP/11658/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition prayed for the release of a seized lorry. The court ordered the release within 7 days subject to furnishing a non-refundable deposit of Rs. 50,000, executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with sureties, providing an undertaking against illegal activities, not alienating the vehicle, and participating in the enquiry.

What did the court decide?

The vehicle is to be released within 7 days subject to deposit of Rs. 50,000, personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with sureties, undertaking against illegal use, non-alienation, and participation in the enqui

Mekala Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.06.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶7

Writ Petition No.11658 of 2019

¶8

Mekala ...Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mannarkudi, Thiruvarur District.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Muthupettai Police Station, Thiruvarur District.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to release the petitioner's lorry bearing Registration No.TN-63-W-9371 seized by the second respondent on 08.06.2018, to the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents: Mr.K.S.Suresh Government Advocate O R D E R [Order was delivered by R.SUBBIAH,J]

¶15

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to release the petitioner's lorry bearing Registration No.TN-63W-9371 seized by the second respondent on 08.06.2018, to the petitioner.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶17

Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶18

3.According to the petitioner, the second respondent has seized the vehicle in question on 08.06.2018 on the ground of illegal carrying of river sand, and till date, no order for release of the said vehicle had been passed by the respondents. Hence, he has come forward with the present Writ Petition.

¶19

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

¶20

On the other hand, it is submitted by learned Government Advocate for the respondents that the vehicle in question was used for illegal transportation of mines and minerals like river sand and hence, the vehicle was seized. He would further submit that the petitioner has no previous case.

¶21

In any event, as the vehicle is under the custody of the respondents from the date of seizure and considering the fact that if the same is allowed to be kept idle by exposing the same to rain and shine, it would certainly diminish their value, this Court is of the view that the vehicle in question may be released by imposing conditions on the petitioner.

¶22

Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the vehicle in question to the petitioner within a period of 7 days from the date of compliance of the below mentioned condition Nos.(i) to (iii):

¶23

(i)The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) before the jurisdictional Tahsildar concerned as non-refundable deposit. After receipt of the above said amount, the same will have to be deposited by the jurisdictional Tahsildar concerned, to the credit of the District Mines and Minerals Foundation Trust as non-refundable deposit.

¶24

(ii)The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate.

¶25

(iii)The petitioner shall give an undertaking before the respondents/authority concerned stating that he will not use the vehicle in question for any illegal activities in future and shall produce the same as and when required by the respondents and also the trial Court, failing which the respondents/trial Court is/are at liberty to confiscate the vehicle.

¶26

(iv)The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle in question till the disposal of the proceedings before the authority concerned.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶30

s/d-
Assistant Registrar(J)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
av
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Mannarkudi, Thiruvarur District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Muthupettai Police Station,
Thiruvarur District.
+1 CC to Mr.Lenin Kumar, Advocate sr 49607.
Writ Petition No.11658 of 2019
MG(CO)
SP(01/07/2019)

¶31

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

Mekala v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mekala v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

P.Arumugam Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

R.Janarthanan@Gandhi Vs The District Collector

C.Murugesan Vs Tmt.S.Malarvizhi I.A.S.

G. Rahmatulla Vs the Registrar General

T.Amirtha Raj Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

V.Pushpanathan Vs Inspector of Police