Allowed

Ravichandran, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC11 Feb 2019WP(MD)/2694/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking release of a seized truck implicating illegal sand transport. The court directed respondents to release the vehicle subject to a security deposit, undertaking of non-reoffending, and cooperation with pending enquiries.

What did the court decide?

Directive to respondents to release the seized vehicle once petitioner deposits Rs. 75,000, submits ownership documents, and executes an undertaking not to alienate the vehicle or commit future offenc

Ravichandran, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.02.2019 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.2694 of 2019

Ravichandran

... Petitioner

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶8

Revenue Divisional Office, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram, District.

¶9

2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, R.S.Mangalam Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶10

3.The Inspector of Police, R.S.Mangalam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

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

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to cosider the petitioner's representation dated on 22.01.2019 and release the petitioner's JCB bearing in Registration No.TN-42-P3816, seized on 20.01.2019.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathya Chidambaram For Respondents : Mr.M.Karuppasamy Government Advocate

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶17

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

¶18

3.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 incident of sand theft or illegal transportation of sand.

¶19

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

¶20

4.The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is

¶21

¶22

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.

¶23

a) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/(Rupees Seventy Five 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.

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

5.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.

¶28

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶29

tsg

¶30

6..The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

Assistant Registrar ()

¶32

// True Copy //

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram, District. 2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, R.S.Mangalam Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Inspector of Police, R.S.Mangalam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Assistant Director, Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals, Ramanathapuram District.
+1 CC to M/s.S.SATHYA CHIDAMBARAM, Advocate ( SR-46148[F] dated 11/02/2019 )
+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-46323[F] dated 12/02/2019 )
TSG
W.P.(MD)No.2694 of 2019 11.02.2019

¶37

KM/(14.03.2019) 3P 7C

¶38

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

Ravichandran, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravichandran, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajarathinam @ Rajathi Vs the Inspector of Police

P. Mareeswaran Vs the Inspector of Police

Maharajan, Vs the District Collector

R.Ayyadurai, S/O.Rasu, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Santhi Vs the Inspector of Police

Pandiyammal Vs the Inspector of Police