Allowed

Duraisamy v. the District Collector

Madras HC8 May 2019WP(MD)/11688/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed writ petition for release of seized vehicle used in illegal sand transportation. Court allowed petition directing respondents to release vehicle immediately upon deposit of Rs. 50,000, execution of undertaking, and production of ownership documents.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to release seized vehicle upon deposit of Rs. 50,000, execution of undertaking, and production of ownership documents.

Duraisamy Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.05.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD) No.11688 of 2019

¶3

Duraisamy ... Petitioner

¶4

vs. 1.The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District. 3. The Assistant Geologist, Geology and Mining, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

¶5

The Inspector of Police, Ganesh Nagar Police Station, Pudukottai District. ... Respondents

¶6

PRAYER : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the Vehicle (Lorry) bearing Registration No.TN–63L-9099 to the petitioner on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 05.05.2019.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mathavan For Respondents : Mr.S.Dhayalan Government Advocate

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶10

By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶11

The petitioner's vehicle was seized in connection with illegal transportation of sand. The enquiry in this regard is still pending. The learned counsel for the petitioner affirms before this Court that the petitioner's vehicle was not involved in any previous https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ incident of sand theft or illegal transportation of sand.

¶12

¶13

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶14

is placed on record. If this submission turns out to be false, the order now passed by this Court would stand automatically recalled and the petitioner will be visited with serious consequences. I am of the view that no purpose will be served by keeping the vehicle in question in the custody of the respondents. If the vehicle is kept in open space and exposed to sun light and rain, it would lose its value. Therefore, the respondents are directed to release the said vehicle subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

(a) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the concerned District Mineral Foundation Trust. He shall execute an affidavit of undertaking that he shall not involve in any offence in future that may lead to the seizure of the vehicle in question. The petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle in question till the proceedings are completed.

¶16

(b) The petitioner shall produce all the documents pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicle.

¶17

(c) This order for release of the vehicle can be pressed into service by the petitioner only if the vehicle is not in the custody of the criminal Court. If the vehicle is in the custody of concerned Criminal Court of appropriate jurisdiction, then, option is given to the petitioner to approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate to get release of the vehicle, by filing necessary application in the manner known to law.

¶18

(d) As and when the respondents call for the vehicle for enquiry, the petitioner has to produce the vehicle in question and he shall cooperate with the enquiry to be conducted by the respondents.

¶19

Upon completion of these formalities, the respondents shall release the vehicle forthwith without any delay. If this undertaking given by the petitioner is breached, the petitioner will not be entitled to interim release of the vehicle in future.

¶20

The writ petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Vacation Officer

/TRUE COPY/

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶25

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

¶26

3 To 1.The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District. 3. The Assistant Geologist, Geology and Mining, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District. 4. The Inspector of Police, Ganesh Nagar Police Station, Pudukottai District. Copy to 5.The Officer-in-Charge, District Mineral Foundation Trust, Pudukkottai District. +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-65625[F] dated 09/05/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.G.MATHAVAN, Advocate ( SR-65542[F] dated 09/05/2019 ) W.P.(MD) No.11688 of 2019 08.05.2019 CS: 15/05/2019/3P/8C

¶27

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

Duraisamy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Duraisamy 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

J.Jerold Jebadurai Vs the Controller of Examination

M.Mohammed Mohsin Vs the Registrar

Santhi, Vs the Honourable

Govindhasamy, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Ellis Murugan, S/O.Rajendran Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Baskar,S/O.Arumairaj, Vs the State through