Allowed

Sankarapandian v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC6 Nov 2020WP(MD)/15498/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought release of his vehicle seized for illegal sand transport. The High Bench of Madurai, Madras HC granted release conditionally, requiring security and cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Release of seized vehicle subject to execution of bond of Rs.25,000 and fulfillment of specified conditions regarding use, documentation, and cooperation.

Sankarapandian Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.15498 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.11.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.15498 of 2020

¶7

Sankarapandian ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶10

Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶11

Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶12

2.The Tahsildar, Thiruchuli Taluk, Thiruchuli,

¶13

Virudhunagar District.

¶14

3.The Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mines, Virudhunagar District. .. Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the petitioner's Vehicle, by branding name Ashok Leyland Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-27-Y-6336 seized by the 2^nd respondent on 11.08.2020.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balaji

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Additional Government Pleader

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(This petition is heard through Video Conference)

¶20

This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking for a direction to the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle namely Ashok Layland Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-27-Y6336 forthwith.

¶21

2.Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondents. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

1/4

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.15498 of 2020

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner that he is an agriculturist and he is the owner of the vehicle namely vehicle namely Ashok Layland Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-27-Y-6336. According to him, on 11.08.2020, the second respondent seized the vehicle, alleging that the petitioner has illegally transported sand in his vehicle without proper bills. According to him, ever since the seizure, the vehicle is still in the custody of the second respondent and till date, no confiscation proceedings have been initiated against the seized vehicle.

¶25

It is also the contention of the petitioner that the vehicle has also not been produced by the second respondent before the concerned Jurisdictional Court. According to him, the seized vehicle is kept idle in the Police Station premises in the open place and exposed to the vagaries of nature, resulting in the vehicle depreciating in value.

¶26

According to the petitioner, he gave a representation to the respondents on 12.08.2020, for releasing of the seized vehicle back to him. According to him, the respondents have failed to respond to the said representation. In such circumstances, he has filed this Writ Petition seeking for release of the seized vehicle.

¶27

Admittedly, the vehicle was seized by the second respondent on 11.08.2020, alleging that the petitioner has illegally transported sand in his vehicle without proper bill. Admittedly, the vehicle is now in the Police Station premises and kept in the open place and exposed to the vagaries of nature and has also not been produced before the Jurisdictional Court.

¶28

As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the vehicle will certainly depreciate in value, if it is allowed to remain in the open place and kept idle for a long period of time. No useful purpose will be served if the vehicle is allowed to be kept idle. In similar matters, this Court has granted release of seized vehicles to the respective petitioners subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant similar relief to the petitioner subject to fulfillment of the following conditions:-

¶29

(i)the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five Thousand only) in favour of the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

(ii)the petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle in question till the proceedings are completed.

¶31

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

¶32

2/4

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.15498 of 2020

¶34

(iii)the petitioner shall not change the colour and scheme of the vehicle.

¶35

(iv)the petitioner shall not use the vehicle for any illegal activities.

¶36

(v)before releasing the vehicle, the police authority shall take photographs of the vehicle at the cost of the petitioner.

¶37

(vi)The petitioner shall produce all xerox copies of the documents pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicle to the first respondent.

¶38

(vii)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.

¶39

Upon completion of the above mentioned formalities, the respondents shall release the vehicle namely Ashok Layland Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-27-Y-6336 to the petitioner forthwith and without any delay. If this undertaking given by the petitioner is breached, the petitioner will not be entitled for interim release of the vehicle in the future.

¶40

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶42

// True Copy //

¶43

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶44

¶45

Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.

¶46

¶47

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶48

Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶49

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

¶50

3/4

¶51

W.P.(MD)No.15498 of 2020

¶52

2.The Tahsildar, Thiruchuli Taluk, Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District.

¶53

3.The Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mines, Virudhunagar District.

¶54

+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-21601[F] dated 09/11/2020 )

¶55

W.P.(MD)No.15498 of 2020 06.11.2020

¶56

ARK(CO) TR(18.11.2020) 4P 5C

¶57

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

¶58

4/4

Sankarapandian v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankarapandian 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puppy S Krishna Ice Factory, Vs the Superintending Engineer

Manikandan @ Bullet Mani, Vs the District Manager

A.Abdul Jabbar, Vs the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

Palamani Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M/S.Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd., Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and

M.Manimegalai, Vs the Commissioner