Disposed

Gnanasekaran v. the Revenue Divisionalofficer

Madras HC23 Sept 2019WP(MD)/20439/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court issued interim directions regarding a seized Tata lorry. It ordered the release of the vehicle subject to ownership proof, a security deposit of Rs. 2,00,000, a written undertaking, and participation in the inquiry. The enquiry was directed to conclude within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Vehicle released subject to deposit of Rs. 2,00,000, production of ownership papers, and undertaking; enquiry to conclude within four weeks.

Gnanasekaran Vs the Revenue… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.20439 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.09.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶6

W.P(MD)No.20439 of 2019

¶7

Gnanasekaran ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office, Kumbakonam,

¶10

Thanjavur District.

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, Papanasam,

¶12

Thanjavur District.

¶13

3.The Inspector of Police, Ammapettai Police Station, Thanjavur District.

¶14

4.The Assistant Director, Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals, Thanjavur District. ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the petitioner's Tata Lorry vehicle bearing Registration No.TN -69 - Z - 8299 and hand over to the petitioner based on the petitioner's representation dated 09/08/2019.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran For Respondents : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi

¶17

Special Government Pleader

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner seeks for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the petitioner's Tata Lorry bearing Registration No.TN - 69 - Z - 8299 and hand over to the petitioner, based on the representation dated 09.08.2019.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final

¶21

1/3

¶22

W.P(MD)No.20439 of 2019

¶23

disposal at the stage of admission.

¶24

3.According to the petitioner, the third respondent has seized the said petitioner's vehicle under the guise of illegal transportation of sand and the vehicle is now under the custody of the third respondent. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the aforesaid relief.

¶25

4.On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the vehicle in question was used for transportation of sand without valid permit and hence, it was seized.

¶26

5.Considering the fact that the vehicle is under the custody of the third respondent, having been seized on 07.06.2019 and if the same is allowed to be kept idle by exposing the same to sun and rain, it would certainly diminish its value. Therefore, pending proceedings before the respondents, this Court is of the view that the vehicle can be released by imposing certain conditions on the petitioner for release of the aforesaid vehicle.

¶27

6.Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the vehicle in question to the petitioner within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order subject to the following conditions:

¶28

“(i)The petitioner shall produce documents before the third respondent under whose custody the vehicle is kept, to establish the ownership of the vehicle in question;

¶29

(ii)The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) for the vehicle before the first respondent herein;

¶30

(iii)The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will not use the vehicle for any illegal activities in future and shall produce the same as and when required by the respondents;

¶31

(iv)On doing so, the vehicle in question shall be returned to the petitioner;

¶32

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

¶33

(vi)The third respondent is directed to complete the enquiry within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and

¶34

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

¶35

2/3

¶36

W.P(MD)No.20439 of 2019

¶37

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

¶38

The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.

¶39

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy //

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶41

mj To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. 2.The Tahsildar, Papanasam, Thanjavur District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Ammapettai Police Station, Thanjavur District. 4.The Assistant Director, Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals, Thanjavur District. +1 CC to M/s.K.M.KARUNAKARAN, Advocate ( SR-88597[F] dated 23/09/2019 ) W.P.(MD)No.20439 of 2019 23.09.2019 JMN(26.09.2019) 3P : 6C

¶42

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

¶43

3/3

Gnanasekaran v. the Revenue Divisionalofficer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gnanasekaran v. the Revenue Divisionalofficer

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

Nagalingam Vs State Rep by

S.Navaneetha Krishna Pandian Vs State by

Pandiyan Vs State by

Sundarraman Vs Bharahti@Padmanabhan

Vignesh Kumar @ Vikki Vs the State Rep by Its

S.v.Chandran Vs P.Chandran