Disposed

A.Murugan v. The District Collector.

Madras HC12 Mar 2019WP/6610/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order directs the respondent to release the petitioner's seized lorry within 7 days upon compliance with specific conditions, including a deposit, bond, undertaking, and participation in the enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Release of the Taurus lorry (TN 52A 9519) within 7 days subject to deposit of Rs.10,000, execution of bond, undertaking, and participation in the enquiry.

A.Murugan Vs The District Collector. — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 12.03.2019

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Honourable Mr. Justice R.SUBBIAH and The Honourable Mr. Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶5

W.P.No.6610 of 2019

¶6

A.Murugan ...Petitioner Versus The District Collector, Krishnagiri District. Krishnagiri. ...Respondent

¶7

Prauer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to release the Taurus lorry bearing Registration No.TN 52A 9519 seized on 16.10.2018 to the petitioner after unloading the granite block.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sanjeevi

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.D.Raghu,

¶10

Government Advocate

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

(Order of the Court was delivered by R.Subbiah, J.,)

¶13

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to release the petitioner's Taurus lorry bearing Registration No.TN 52A 9519.

¶14

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

¶15

According to the petitioner, the respondent had seized the vehicle in question on 16.10.2018 on the ground of illegal carrying of granite block and till date, no order for release of

¶16

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

¶17

the said vehicle had been passed by the respondent. Hence, he has come forward with the present Writ Petition.

¶18

On the other hand, it is submitted by learned Government Advocate for the respondent that the vehicle in question was used for illegal transportation of mines and minerals like granite block and there was no valid permit and hence, the vehicle was seized. He further submitted that the petitioner has no previous case.

¶19

In any event, as the vehicle is under the custody of the respondent 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 sun, 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.

¶20

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):

¶21

(i)The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(iii)The petitioner shall give an undertaking before the respondent/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 respondent and also the trial Court, failing which the respondent/trial Court is/are at liberty to confiscate the vehicle.

¶24

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

¶25

(v)The petitioner is also directed to participate in the enquiry to be conducted by the respondent.

¶26

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

¶27

With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mrr
To
The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District.
Krishnagiri.
+1cc to Mr.V.Sanjeevi, Advocate SR.No.22934
+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.23654
W.P.No.6610 of 2019
GMY(21/03/2019)

¶29

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

A.Murugan v. The District Collector.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Murugan v. The District Collector.

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.Narendran S/O. a.Rengarajan Vs The District Collector

Latha, Vs The District Collector

V.Valarmathi Vs The Sub Collector

S.Santhi Vs the Director General of Police

K.Mogiliyammal Vs the Superintendent of Police

Vijeth Dhinakaran, Vs The Tahsildhar