Allowed

R.Baluchamy, S/O.Raju, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC21 Mar 2019WP(MD)/6727/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment orders the release of the petitioner's earth moving equipment seized during an enquiry into illegal sand transportation, subject to a security deposit, affidavit undertaking, and conditions requiring the vehicle's availability for future investigation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to release the seized earth moving equipment upon deposit of Rs. 75,000 and fulfillment of specific conditions regarding undertaking and availability for enquiry.

R.Baluchamy, S/O.Raju, Vs the Revenue Divisional… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.03.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.6727 of 2019

R.Baluchamy

... Petitioner

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

2.The Assistant Director, Mines & Minerals Department, Ramanathapuram District.

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police, Sikkal Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's Earth Moving Equipment bearing Registration No.TN 63 BD 1226, Enginer No.81F84496931, Chassis No.THEWABD0CJ0000044, seized by the third respondent police on 16.03.2019, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 19.03.2019 within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Veerakumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Sethuraman Special Government Pleader

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶17

2.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.

¶18

3.The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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

¶19

¶20

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.

¶21

a) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/- 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.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

4.Upon completion of these formalities, the respondents shall

¶26

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.

¶27

5.The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶28

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶31

pnn

¶32

¶33

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi,

¶34

Ramanathapuram District.

¶35

2.The Assistant Director,

¶36

Mines & Minerals Department, Ramanathapuram District.

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

3.The Inspector of Police, Sikkal Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶40

+1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.No. 55977

¶41

W.P.(MD)No.6727 of 2019 21.03.2019

¶42

TR (29.03.2019) 3P 5C

¶43

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

R.Baluchamy, S/O.Raju, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Baluchamy, S/O.Raju, 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

A.Issac Arul, Vs the District Collector

L.M. Manikandan, Vs the Sub Collector

Village Drinking Water and health Society Vs the Districtcollector