Disposed

Akramkhan v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC24 Jun 2019WP/11984/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition seeking release of a seized heavy goods vehicle. The court directed respondents to release the vehicle within 7 days subject to a non-refundable deposit, execution of a bond, undertaking not to use it illegally, non-alienation, and participation in the enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Release of seized vehicle within 7 days subject to deposit, bond, undertaking, non-alienation, and participation in enquiry.

Akramkhan Vs The District Revenue Officer — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 24.06.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Writ Petition No.11984 of 2019

¶5

Akramkhan ...Petitioner
Vs
1. The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
2. The Revenue Division Officer,
Ponneri Taluk,
Thiruvallur District.
3. The Tahsildhar,
Ponneri Taluk,
Thiruvallur District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
M-4, Redhills Police Station,
Thiruvallur District.
(4th respondent amended vide order dated 18.06.2019,
made in WMP.No.15884/2019 in W.P.No.11984/2019.)
... Respondents

¶6

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to releasethe lorry of the petitioner bearing Registration No.TN-05-AM-0219 (TATA-Heavy goods Vehicle), seized by the respondents on 13.07.2018, to the petitioner forthwith based on the representation of the petitioner dated 01.04.2019.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Chandra Sekar For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Suresh Government Advocate

¶8

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

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

[Order was delivered by R.SUBBIAH,J]

¶11

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to releasethe lorry of the petitioner bearing Registration No.TN05-AM-0219 (TATA-Heavy goods Vehicle), seized by the respondents on 13.07.2018, to the petitioner forthwith based on the representation of the petitioner dated 01.04.2019.

¶12

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

¶13

According to the petitioner, the respondents have seized the vehicle in question on 13.07.2018 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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

Accordingly, the respondent is 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):

¶17

(i)The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) before the jurisdictional Tahsildar concerned as non-refundable deposit. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). Hence, the petitioner is directed to deposit the balance sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). 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.

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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 respondent/trial Court is/are at liberty to confiscate the vehicle.

¶21

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

¶22

(v)The petitioner is also directed to participate in the enquiry
to be conducted by the respondents.
With the above observations and directions, this Writ
Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-IV)
//True Copy//
av Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
2. The Revenue Division Officer,
Ponneri Taluk,
Thiruvallur District.
3. The Tahsildhar,
Ponneri Taluk,
Thiruvallur District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
M-4, Redhills Police Station,
Thiruvallur District.
+1 cc to Mr.P.Chandrasekar, Advocate, S.R.No.51466
+1 cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.52870

¶23

Writ Petition No.11984 of 2019

¶24

PA(CO) SSM(27/06/2019)

¶25

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

Akramkhan v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akramkhan v. The District Revenue Officer

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

K.Nagappa Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

A.Raji Kumar Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Samuel Vs The District Collector

Pachaiyappa`S Trust Board Vs Dr.P.Santhi

J.Rajini Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

M.Kamarasu @ Kamaraj Vs State Rep. by