Petitioner sought writ to release seized tractor and trailer used for illegal sand transport. Bench relied on prior order directing specific protocols for seizure and vehicle release under Mining Acts and IPC, concluding matter posted for consideration was exhausted by existing judgments.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.6460 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.06.2020 CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P.(MD)No.6460 of 2020
V.Vijayakumar
... Petitioner
vs.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to release my Tractor vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 67 F 9937 and Trailer bearing registration No.TN 67 F 9937, within a stipulated time.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.M.Makesh Kumaravel For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, Govt. Advocate
O R D E R
This writ petition, related to seizure of Tractor vehicle along with trailor, bearing registration number TN 67 F 9937, while transporting the sand.
2 . The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD). Nos.19936 of 2017 etc batch-(Muthu Vs. The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai and others), by order dated 29.10.2018, in similar matters had issued the following directions, with respect to release of the vehicle.
“13. As recorded earlier, illegal mining is carrying on unabatedly under the very nose of the revenue officials, which can be taken judicial note of by this Court with a fond hope that the same can be controlled in future. Hence, we issue the following directions:
1/4
W.P.(MD)No.6460 of 2020
(I) The District Level Task Forces and Taluk Level Task Forces, constituted pursuant to the order passed in WP (MD)No.9806 of 2018 should follow the G.O.(Ms)No.135 Industries (MMA.1) Department, dated 13.11.2009 in letter and spirit.
(ii) As stated in the above said Government Order,periodical meetings will have to be held which is inclusive of action taken/to be taken for the illicit mining.
(iii) Steps will have to be taken for dereliction of the duty by the concerned officials.
(iv) Taluk Level Task Forces shall also comply with the directions issued in the Government Order by making frequent surprise checks and submit their report to the District Level Task Forces.
(v) The Taluk Level Task Forces shall meet every fortnight as mandated in the Government Order.
(vi) The responsibility fixed in the Government Order will have to be strictly construed and action will have to be taken against the erring Village Administrative Officer, Tahsildar, Officer in-charge of Department of Geology and Mining at District Level.
(vii) Action taken report will have to be sent by the District Collector concerned for the purpose of taking necessary action. The District Collector concerned shall take appropriate departmental action by himself as per the Rules provided so.
(viii) Separate records will have to be maintained by the Village Administrative Officer, Tahsildar and Officer incharge of the Department of Geology and Mining with respect to the cases involving illicit mining.
(ix) As and when illicit mining is reported, the same will be recorded in the records.
(x) The respective District Collectors will have to ensure by making vide publicity of phone particulars assigned to the District Level Task Forces and the Talk Level Task Forces, so that, the general public can give their complaints. There should be affixture or display of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the phone particulars in the Collectorate, Taluk office,
2/4
W.P.(MD)No.6460 of 2020
Office of Deputy Director and Assistant Director of Geology and Mining and that of the Village Administrative Officer.
(xi) Complainant will have to be intimated on the action taken within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the complaint. A complaint shall also be received even when made through phone calls.
(xii) Complaints by an authorised person under Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 are to be made immediately and not later than one week from the date of seizure.
(xiii) Whenever, a final report is filed for the offence under Section 379 IPC by the jurisdictional police before the jurisdictional Magistrate, the same shall also be committed to the Special Court. This is for the reason that it would be appropriate to deal with both the police case and the private complaint by the same Court and in order to avoid any possible conflict.
(xiv) The revenue officials at the time of seizure can issue a memo to the person in-charge of the vehicle, mineral among other things, indicating the seizure made, along with the date and time.
(xv) In so far as the seized vehicles are concerned, they shall be produced before the concerned Magistrate Court by the revenue authorities at the time of filing their respective complaints.
(xvi) Any application for release of vehicle etc., can only be filed before the Special Court alone.
(xvii) Any violation of the above would constitute a contempt of the order passed by this Court, for which, appropriate application can either be filed before the First Bench of this Court or any other Bench as per the direction of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
14.With the above observations and directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”
3/4
W.P.(MD)No.6460 of 2020
Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-II)
// True Copy //
/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
Pkn To
W.P.(MD)No.6460 of 2020 04.06.2020
KM (12.06.2020) 4P 4C
4/4
3 issues framed by the court
Can a Writ of Mandamus be issued directing the release of a seized tractor and trailer involved in illegal mining activity?
Whether the respondents are bound to follow the directions issued in the precedent order W.P.(MD). Nos.19936 of 2017 batch?
Is the Petitioner's petition maintainable given existing orders on similar matters?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Muthu Vs. The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai and othersRelied on¶15
W.P.(MD). Nos.19936 of 2017 etc batch-(Muthu Vs. The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai and others)
V.Vijayakumar
The Assistant Director of Mines & Minerals, Ramanathapuram
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi
The Sub Inspector of Police, Elanjembur Police Station
C.V.KartHIKEYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
