Disposed

P.Vijayalakshmi v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC26 Jun 2019WP/17591/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a mandamus directing state authorities to release a vehicle seized for suspected illegal sand transportation. The High Court directed the vehicle's release within seven days, conditioned on a non-refundable deposit, a personal bond, and an undertaking against future illegal use.

What did the court decide?

Vehicle released subject to Rs.25,000 deposit, Rs.10,000 bond, and undertaking against illegal use within 7 days.

P.Vijayalakshmi Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26.06.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH and

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

Writ Petition No.17591 of 2019

¶7

P.Vijayalakshmi ...Petitioner
Vs
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Nagappattinam,
Nagapattinam District.
2. The Tahsildar,
Nagappattinam Taluk,
Nagappattinam District.
3. The Inspector of POlice,
Nagore Police Station,
Nagappattinam District. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution
of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,
directing the first and second respondents to release the
petitioner's vehicle TATA (ACE) bearing Registration No.TN-51-D-
7939, which is in the custody of the third respondent.

¶8

For Petitioner : Ms.S.Rajanikanthi
For Respondents: Mr.V.Shanmuga Sundar
Special Government Pleader
*****
O R D E R
[Order was delivered by R.SUBBIAH, J]

¶9

Petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle TATA (ACE) bearing Registration No.TN-51-D-7939, which is in the custody of the third respondent.

¶10

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

¶11

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for respondents.

¶12

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondents have seized the vehicle in question 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 present Writ Petition.

¶13

On the other hand, it is submitted by learned Special Government Pleader for 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 petitioner has no previous case.

¶14

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.

¶15

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):

¶16

(i)Petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(iii)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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

With the above observations and directions, this Writ
Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(J)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vv
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Nagappattinam,
Nagapattinam District.
2. The Tahsildar,
Nagappattinam Taluk,
Nagappattinam District.
3. The Inspector of POlice,
Nagore Police Station,
Nagappattinam District.
+1cc to Mr.S.Rajanikanth, Advocate, S.R.No.52550
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.53521
Writ Petition No.17591 of 2019
RRS(11/07/2019)

¶23

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

P.Vijayalakshmi v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Vijayalakshmi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Pachiyappan Vs The District Collector

B.Vivekanandan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

G. Sekar, Vs the Sub Collector / Revenue Divisional Officer

C.Vajiram Vs The Chairman

Mr. Paramasivam Vs The Deputy Director

Chinnadurai Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer