Dismissed

Mohamed Rafi v. The State Rep. by

Madras HC10 Dec 2019WP/13891/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking release of a seized vehicle. The court held the writ petition was not maintainable as a final administrative order had been passed, which required an appeal before the District Court. The petition was disposed of with liberty to appeal.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to file regular appeal before Principal District Court, Krishnagiri.

Mohamed Rafi Vs The State Rep. by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 10.12.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

W.P.No.13891 of 2019

Mohamed Rafi

.. Petitioner ..Vs..

1.The State Rep.by the CSCID (Food Cell) Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

¶9

2.The District Revenue Office, Collector Office, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. .. Respondents

¶10

R2 is impleaded vide order made in W.M.P.No.23021 of 2019 by PDAJ on 21.08.2019.

¶11

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the Petitioner's Tata Super Ace Four Wheeler bearing Registration No.KA.08.6796 which was seized by the respondent.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Paul Ganamuthu For Respondents : Mr.R.Govindasamy Special Government Pleader

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the Petitioner's Tata Super Ace Four Wheeler bearing Registration No.KA.08.6796 which was seized by the respondents.

¶15

The District Revenue Officer who has been impleaded as R2 has passed a final order on 21.11.2019 in Na.Ka.No.17232/2018/F6. As against this, an appeal has to be filed before the concerned District Court. Consequently, the Writ Petition is not maintainable before this Court. The petitioner is granted liberty to file a regular appeal before the Principal District Court, Krishnagiri. If an appeal is filed, the period during which the present Writ Petition was pending before this Court from 24.04.2019 to 10.12.2019 may be considered as bonafide proceedings of a legal issue.

¶16

With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No Costs.

Sd/-

Asst.Registrar

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

smv

To,

1.The Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri

¶24

The CSID (Food Cell)

¶25

Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

¶26

3.The District Revenue Office,

¶27

Collector Office, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

¶28

+1 cc to Mr.S.Paul Ganamuthu Advocate sr 103425

¶29

+1 cc to the Government Pleader sr103129

¶30

W.P.No.13891 of 2019

¶31

aa22/01/2020

Mohamed Rafi v. The State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Rafi v. The State Rep. by

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

V.Dinesh Kumar, Vs The Regional Manager

C.Jayalakshmi Vs M/s. Indian Oil Corporation

D.Sarkarai Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

V.M.Shamshudeen, Vs Government of India

S.P.Natarajan, Vs The District Collector

Sundaramoorthy Vs The District Revenue Officer