Disposed

T. Subramani v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC22 Sept 2021WP/20326/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court directed release of seized tanker truck upon petitioner depositing Rs. 50,000, producing ownership documents, and undertaking not to alienate the vehicle, while reserving respondent's right to initiate further proceedings within three months.

What did the court decide?

Vehicle to be released upon deposit of Rs. 50,000 and proof of ownership; refund ordered if no proceedings initiated within three months.

T. Subramani Vs The District Revenue Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

W.P.No.20326 of 2021

T.Subramani

...Petitioner

The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Namakkal District, Namakkal - 637 003.

¶10

The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Namakkal.

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to release the Tanker Truck Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 07 AE 9654 to the petitioner.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar

¶14

For R1 & R2 : Mr.G.Krishnaraja, Government Counsel

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to release the vehicle viz., Tanker Truck Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 07 AE 9654 seized by the second respondent to the petitioner.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Counsel for the respondents.

¶18

It is seen from the records that the subject vehicle was seized by the second respondent on 10.08.2020 on the

¶19

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

¶20

allegation that the said vehicle was indulged in transporting diesel illegally. Therefore, this Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the contentions made by the petitioner against the allegations made, as it is for the Adjudicating Authority to consider and decide. However, considering the fact that the vehicle was seized as early as on 10.08.2020 and the same is kept idle thereby exposing it to sun and rain, which undoubtedly would diminish its value, this Court is of the view that the following order will protect the interest of both parties:

¶21

(a) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) before the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

(b) The petitioner shall appear in person and produce all the relevant documents proving the ownership of the vehicle for verification of the authority.

¶23

(c) On receipt of payment as stated supra and also on being satisfied with the ownership of the vehicle, the first respondent shall release the subject vehicle forthwith.

¶24

(d) The petitioner shall not use the said vehicle for any unlawful purpose and also shall not alienate the same during the pendency of the proceedings.

¶25

(e) It is open to the respondent to initiate proceedings in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders on merits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

(f) If no such order is passed within the time stipulated therein, the amount so paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner.

¶27

(g) This order for release of the vehicle can be availed of by the petitioner, if the vehicle is not in the custody of criminal Court. If the vehicle is in the custody of the criminal Court, it is open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate to get release of the vehicle by filing appropriate application and the same can be considered in accordance with law.

¶28

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

¶29

This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶30

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶31

//True Copy//

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

¶34

¶35

1.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Namakkal District, Namakkal - 637 003.

¶36

2.The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Namakkal.

¶37

+1cc to Mr.Vinoth Kumar, Advocate Sr No.48720

¶38

W.P.No.20326 of 2021

¶39

MG (CO) PR (24/09/2021)

¶40

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

T. Subramani v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Subramani v. The District Revenue 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

R.Vanaja Vs The District Collector

Valliyammal Vs The Tahsildar

Vasantha Raman Vs The Revenue Inspector II T. Nagar

Nagai District Vide and Photographers Vs The Inspector General of Registration

The Coimbatore District Vs Tamilnadu Text Book and

Mrs.Sampooranam Vs The Tahsildar