Allowed

Murugapandiyan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC16 Aug 2019WP/23885/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, in a writ petition under Article 226, directed the seizure of the petitioner's tractor to be released within 7 days subject to non-refundable deposits, performance of a bond, undertaking against future illegal activities, and participation in the ongoing enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Release of the seized tractor subject to deposit of Rs. 25,000, execution of a bond of Rs. 10,000 with sureties, undertaking against future illegal activities, and participation in the enquiry.

Murugapandiyan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.08.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶7

Writ Petition No.23885 of 2019

¶8

Murugapandiyan S/o.Mariyappan ...Petitioner Vs 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvarur District. 2.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Thiruvarur, Thiruvarur District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvarur Taluk Police Station, Thiruvarur District. ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle viz., Tractor with Tipper bearing Registration No.TN-50K-7017, which is in the custody of third respondent.

¶10

For Petitioner : Ms.Greetha Senthilkumar For Respondents: Mr.E.Balamurugan Special Government Pleader

¶11

Petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle viz., Tractor with Tipper bearing Registration No.TN-50-K-7017, which is in the custody of third respondent.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Special

¶13

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

¶14

Government Pleader for respondents.

¶15

According to petitioner, the vehicle in question was seized 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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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):

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thiruvarur District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Office of the Tahsildar,
Thiruvarur, Thiruvarur District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Thiruvarur Taluk Police Station,
Thiruvarur District.
+1cc to Mr.Greetha Senthilkumar, Advocate, SR.No.69861
Writ Petition No.23885 of 2019
Kak(28/08/2019)

¶28

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

Murugapandiyan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugapandiyan 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

R.Radhakrishnan Vs The Sub Collector/

N.Mohan Kumar Vs The sub Collector

P.Vengatesan, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

C.Vijayakumar Vs The District Collector

R.Vediappan Vs The Assistant Director

G.Mohan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer