Allowed

Ashok Kumar, v. the Additional District

Madras HC30 Apr 2019WP(MD)/25515/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court quashed a confiscation order against the petitioner's bus under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The court held that the authority failed to provide a personal hearing as mandated by law, rendering the order procedurally flawed. The Writ Petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned confiscation order dated 19.11.2018; directed release of the bus.

Ashok Kumar, Vs the Additional District — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 30.04.2019

¶4

CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD) No.25515 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.23110 & 23111 of 2018

Ashok Kumar

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Additional District Superintendent of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing,

¶9

Ramanathapuram District.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police,

¶11

PEW Police Station, Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents (Crime No.1069 of 2018)

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS, calling for the records of the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.36-1/Confiscation/ADSP/RPM/18 dated 19.11.2018, quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to release the vehicle bearing Registration No: PY 02 N 8359.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.M.Karuppasamy Government Advocate

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶17

2 . By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶18

3 .The writ petitioner is the owner of the petition mentioned bus. The bus got involved for the offences under Sections 4(1-A) and 14 A of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. Hence, Crime No.1069 of 2018 was registered by the second respondent. The first respondent after issuing notice to the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 19.11.2018 confiscating the petition mentioned bus. The said confiscation order is before me.

¶19

4.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submitted that as per Section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, a reasonable opportunity of hearing in the matter is contemplated. In this case, the first respondent did not afford any

¶20

¶21

personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶22

5.In view of the procedure violated, the order impugned in the Writ Petition stands quashed. The Writ Petition stands allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar (Records)

¶25

// True Copy //

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶27

¶28

1.The Additional District Superintendent of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Ramanathapuram District.

¶29

2.The Inspector of Police, PEW Police Station, Ramanathapuram.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan, Advocate, SR.No. 64826 +1cc to M/s.Special Government Pleader,SR.No.65175

¶31

W.P.(MD) No.25515 of 2018 30.04.2019

¶32

tsg KK/SAR/15.05.2019/ 2P- 5C

¶33

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

Ashok Kumar, v. the Additional District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar, v. the Additional District

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

Alaguraja, Vs the Inspector of Police

The Hereditary Trustee, Vs Hari Haran

Ramesh Babu(Advocate) Vs the Secretary

S.John Peter, Vs the Sub Registrar

Jeyarani Ganapathimuthu Vs the District Collector

V.Sivakumar, Vs the Inspector General of