Dismissed

Hemanth Kumar Dhanala, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC20 Mar 2019WP/8308/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court released the seized lorry to the petitioner on the security of a non-refundable deposit, execution of a personal bond with sureties, an undertaking against future illegal use, and an agreement not to alienate the vehicle until proceedings conclude.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release the seized vehicle within seven days upon satisfying conditions including depositing Rs.10,000, executing a bond, and providing an undertaking.

Hemanth Kumar Dhanala, Vs The Revenue Divisional… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 20.03.2019

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.Subbiah and

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy

¶6

Writ Petition No.8308 of 2019

¶7

Hemanth Kumar Dhanala ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District. 2.The Tahsildar, Tiruvallur District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Vengal Police Station, Tiruvallur District. (Crime No.107/2019) ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the Lorry bearing Registration No. AP 26 AJ 5488 and which were seized on 27.02.2019 by the second respondent to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Arumugam For Respondents: Mr.D.Raghu Government Advocate

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

[Order was delivered by R.SUBBIAH,J]

¶10

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the Lorry bearing Registration No. AP 26 AJ 5488 and which were seized on 27.02.2019 by the second respondent to the petitioner.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

According to the petitioner, the respondents have seized the vehicle in question on 27.02.2019 on the ground of illegal carrying of savudu 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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 sun, it would certainly diminish their value, this Court is of the view that the vehicle in question may be released by imposing certain conditions on the petitioner.

¶16

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 condition Nos.(i) to (iii), which are mentioned below:

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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 by the respondents and also the trial Court, failing which the respondents/trial Court is/are at liberty to confiscate the vehicle.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶26

//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vkr
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Tiruvallur District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Vengal Police Station,
Tiruvallur District.
+1cc to Mr.K.S.Arumugam, Advocate SR.No.26214
Writ Petition No.8308 of 2019
GMY(26/03/2019)

¶27

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

Hemanth Kumar Dhanala, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemanth Kumar Dhanala, 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

C.Magarajan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

M/S.Cav Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. Vs Tamilnadu Pollution Control

T.Shankar Vs The Revenue Divisiional Officer

N.Jagadeesan Vs The State Rep. by Inspector of Police

V.Venkatesh, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Shanmugavel Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer