Allowed

Satheeshkumar v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC4 Jun 2019WP/15275/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus for release of seized lorry. Court directed State authorities to release the vehicle within 7 days upon deposit of security, execution of bond, and undertaking against future illegal use, balancing preservation of evidence with economic loss to petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Directions to release seized lorry within 7 days upon deposit of Rs.50,000, execution of bond of Rs.10,000 with sureties, undertaking against illegal use, and agreement not to alienate vehicle pending

Satheeshkumar Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.06.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶7

Writ Petition No.15275 of 2019
Satheeshkumar
S/o.Annamalai ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Tiruchengode,
Namakkal District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Tahsildar Office,
Padamudipalayam,
Namakkal District.
3.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Velur Police Station,
Namakkal District. ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to release the petitioner's Taurus Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-AR9356, which is in the custody of the third respondent.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Suresh Government Advocate *****

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

[Order was delivered by R.SUBBIAH, J ]

¶14

Petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to release the petitioner's Taurus Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-AR-9356, which is in the custody

¶15

of the third respondent.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government

¶17

Advocate for respondents.

¶18

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondents have

¶19

seized the vehicle in question on 15.05.2019 on the ground of illegal carrying of river sand and till date, no order for release of the said vehicle had been passed by respondents. Hence, he has come forward with the

¶20

present Writ Petition.

¶21

On the other hand, it is submitted by learned Government Advocate for respondents that the vehicle in question was used for illegal

¶22

transportation of mines and minerals like river sand and hence, the vehicle was seized. He would further submit that petitioner has no previous case.

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

¶25

In any event, as the vehicle is under the custody of the

¶26

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

¶27

vehicle in question may be released by imposing conditions on the petitioner.

¶28

Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the vehicle in

¶29

question to the petitioner within a period of 7 days from the date of compliance of the below mentioned condition Nos.(i) to (iii):

¶30

(i) Petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand

¶31

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.

¶32

(ii) 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.

¶33

(iii)Petitioner shall give an undertaking before the respondents/authority

¶34

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

¶35

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶36

¶37

required by the respondents and also the trial Court, failing which the respondents/trial Court is/are at liberty to confiscate the vehicle.

¶38

(iv)Petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle in question till the disposal of

¶39

the proceedings before the authority concerned.

¶40

(v) 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.
[R.P.S., J] [C.S.N., J]
04.06.2019
Note to office: Issue order copy within a week
Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order
Index : Yes/ No,
Internet : Yes
gm

¶41

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶42

¶43

¶44

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District.

¶45

2.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Padamudipalayam, Namakkal District.

¶46

3.The Inspector of Police, Velur Police Station, Namakkal District.

¶47

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶48

¶49

R.SUBBIAH, J AND C.SARAVANAN, J

¶50

¶51

Writ Petition No.15275 of 2019

¶52

04.06.2019

¶53

http://www.judis.nic.in

Satheeshkumar v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satheeshkumar 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.Ramadass Vs The Tahsildar

L.Munirathinam Vs The Tahsildar

K.venkatesan, Vs The Tahsildar

K.Parvathamma, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

M.Kuppan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

D.Arumugam Vs The District Revenue Officer