Disposed

Sathish Kumar v. The State rep. by its

Madras HC21 Mar 2019WP/8339/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking release of a vehicle seized for alleged illegal transportation of pebbles. It directed respondents to release the vehicle within 7 days if the petitioner complies with conditions including a non-refundable deposit, personal bond, and undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Directed release of the vehicle within 7 days subject to deposit of Rs.10,000, execution of personal bond, and undertaking not to use for illegal activities.

Sathish Kumar Vs The State rep. by its — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 21.03.2019

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.Subbiah and The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy

¶5

Writ Petition No.8339 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.8879 of 2019

¶6

Sathish Kumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Vriddhachalam Revenue Divisional Office,
Vriddhachalam (Town)
Cuddalore District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Vriddhachalam Town & Taluk,
Vriddhachalam,
Cuddalore District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Vriddhachalam Police Station,
Vriddhachalam (Town)
Cuddalore District. ...Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 above, to release the vehicle – Ashok Leyland Make Subitha Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-48T-1155 to the petitioner herein forthwith, based on his representation, dated 01.03.2019, concerning Crime No.56 of 2019, on the file of the 3^rd respondent Police, subject to certain conditions, as may be imposed upon on him by this Hon'ble Court.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Tamizhenthi

¶9

For Respondents: Mr.D.Raghu, Government Advocate

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R [Order was delivered by R.SUBBIAH,J]

¶12

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 above, to release the vehicle – Ashok Leyland Make Subitha Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-48-T-1155 to the petitioner herein forthwith, based on his representation, dated 01.03.2019.

¶13

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

¶14

According to the petitioner, the respondents have seized the vehicle in question on 05.02.2019 on the ground of illegal carrying of pebbles (Coolangkarkkal pieces), 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.

¶15

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 pebbles (Coolangkarkkal pieces) and there is no valid permit and hence, the vehicle was seized. He further submitted that the petitioner has no previous case.

¶16

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.

¶17

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:

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

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

¶22

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

¶23

(v)The petitioner is also directed to participate in the enquiry to be conducted by the respondents. With the above observations and directions, this Writ

¶24

Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶25

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Vriddhachalam Revenue Divisional Office,
Vriddhachalam (Town)
Cuddalore District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Vriddhachalam Town & Taluk,
Vriddhachalam,
Cuddalore District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Vriddhachalam Police Station,
Vriddhachalam (Town)
Cuddalore District.
+1 CC to Mr.P.Tamizhenthi, Advocate sr 26715.
+1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 27998.
Writ Petition No.8339 of 2019
and
W.M.P.No.8879 of 2019
KJ(CO)
SP(29/03/2019)

¶26

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

Sathish Kumar v. The State rep. by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathish Kumar v. The State rep. by its

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

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

M.Janarthanan Vs The District Collector

M.Thangarani Vs The Revenue Divisoinal Officer

Parakash Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Sankar Vs The State rep. by its

K.Pandurangan Vs The State rep. by its