Allowed

A.Pari v. The District Collector

Madras HC13 Mar 2019WP/7388/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought the release of a tractor-tipper seized for alleged illegal mining. The High Court directed the respondents to release the vehicle within 7 days upon the petitioner depositing a refundable amount via surety bond and executing an undertaking not to use the vehicle for illegal activities.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to release the seized vehicle within 7 days upon compliance of conditions involving a deposit, surety bond, and undertaking.

A.Pari Vs The District Collector — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13.03.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH and

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.No.7388 of 2019

¶7

A.Pari .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Collectorate Campus,
Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District.
2. The Sub Collector,
Virudhachalam,
Cuddalore District.
3. The Revenue Thasildhar,
Thittagudi,
Cuddalore District.
4. The Assistant Director,
Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Department,
Cuddalore District.
5. The Special Sub Inspector of Police,
Karuveppilan Kurichi Police Station,
Cuddalore District,
in Crime No.41 of 2019. .. Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent 2 and 5 to release the petitioner's Tractor with Tipper bearing its Registration No.TN-68-Q-8829, which was seized on 21.02.2019 by the fifth respondent and hand over the same to the petitioner within a stipulated time as may be fixed by by this Court.

¶9

For petitioner : Mr.A.Saravanan For respondents : Mr.D.Raghu, Govt. Advocate

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent 2 and 5 to release the petitioner's Tractor with Tipper bearing its Registration No.TN-68-Q-8829, which was seized on 21.02.2019 by the fifth respondent and hand over the same to the petitioner within a stipulated time as may be fixed by by this Court.

¶14

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

¶15

According to the petitioner, the respondents have seized the vehicle in question on 21.02.2019 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.

¶16

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.

¶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 its 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) The 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) 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.

¶21

(iii) The 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

¶22

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

¶23

by the respondents and also the trial Court, failing which the respondents/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 respondents.

¶26

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

¶27

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
cs
To
1. The District Collector,
Collectorate Campus,
Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District.
2. The Sub Collector,
Virudhachalam,
Cuddalore District.
3. The Revenue Thasildhar,
Thittagudi,
Cuddalore District.
4. The Assistant Director,
Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Department,
Cuddalore District.
5. The Special Sub Inspector of Police,
Karuveppilan Kurichi Police Station,
Cuddalore District,
in Crime No.41 of 2019.
+1cc to Mr.A.Saravanan , Advocate SR.No. 23484
+1 CC TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.NO. 24749

¶28

W.P.No.7388 of 2019

¶29

A.SK(19/03/2019)

¶30

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

A.Pari v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Pari 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

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

P.Kandan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

S.Padmapriya Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

K.Srinivasan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer