Allowed

S.Dilli v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC13 Mar 2019WP/6942/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras issued directions for the release of a seized Tipper Lorry to the petitioner. The Court imposed conditions including a non-refundable deposit, execution of a personal bond, an undertaking against future illegal activity, and participation in the ongoing enquiry, ruling that the vehicle should not be kept idle.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to release the seized vehicle to the petitioner within 7 days, subject to conditions regarding non-refundable deposit, personal bond, undertaking, and participation in enquiry

S.Dilli Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.03.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶2

W.P.No.6942 of 2019

¶3

S.Dilli .. Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kanchipuram District,
Kanchipuram.

¶6

The Inspector of Police,
Baluchetty Chathiram Police Station,
Kanchipuram District. .. Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to release the heavy vehicle (Tipper Lorry) bearing Regn.No.TN-20-AX-8998 seized by the second respondent, to the petitioner.

¶8

For petitioner : Mr.K.M.Balaji For respondents : Mr.D.Raghu, Govt. Advocate ORDER (The Order of the Court was made by R.Subbiah,J)

¶9

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to release the heavy vehicle (Tipper Lorry) bearing Regn.No.TN-20-AX-8998 seized by the second respondent, to the petitioner.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶11

According to the petitioner, the respondents have seized the vehicle in question on 09.01.2019 on the ground of illegal mining 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.

¶12

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

¶13

On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that the vehicle in question was used for illegal transportation of mines and minerals like river sand and there was no valid permit and hence the vehicle was seized. He further submitted that the 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 its 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) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty 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) 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.

¶18

(iii) The petitioner shall give an undertaking before the respondent(s)/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) The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle in question till the disposal of the proceedings before the authority concerned.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS iii)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

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

¶27

cs To

¶28

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanchipuram District, Kanchipuram.

¶29

The Inspector of Police, Baluchetty Chathiram Police Station, Kanchipuram District.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.K.M.Balaji , Advocate SR.No. 23716 +1 CC TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.NO. 24166

¶31

W.P.No.6942 of 2019 A.SK(19/03/2019)

¶32

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

S.Dilli v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Dilli 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

S.Santhi Vs the Director General of Police

K.Mogiliyammal Vs the Superintendent of Police

Vijeth Dhinakaran, Vs The Tahsildhar

A.Pari Vs The District Collector

P.Kandan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

S.Padmapriya Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer