Allowed

Muthusamy. R v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC19 Apr 2021WP(MD)/2970/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench directed the respondents to release the petitioner's seized vehicle pending confiscation proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act. The court mandated a deposit, custody of documents, and a strict eight-week timeline for the Revenue Officer to complete proceedings and pass a final order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release seized vehicle subject to deposit of Rs.5,000, custody of RC Book, and strict completion of confiscation proceedings within eight weeks of the order.

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

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.2970 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.04.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.(MD)No.2970 of 2021

¶6

R.Muthusamy ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District.

¶9

The Inspector of Police, CSCID – Dindigul Police Station, Madurai District. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Writ 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 Ashok Leyland goods carrier (dost) bearing Registration No. TN 43 Z 8896 to the petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶11

For Petiti oner : Mr.S.Malaikani For Respondents : Mr.M.Muniasamy Additional Government Pleader

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to release the vehicle that was seized by the second respondent in Crime.No.147 of 2020, which was registered for the offences under Section 6(4) of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (RDCS) Order, 1982 read with Section 7(1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955.

¶14

2.The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that already confiscation proceedings have been initiated by the first respondent and the same is pending. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the relief sought for by the petitioner is not sustainable.

¶15

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

¶16

1/3

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.2970 of 2021

¶18

3.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶19

submitted that the vehicle was seized in the month of December 2020 and for the last 4 ½ months, the vehicle has not been handed over to the petitioner.

¶20

4.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, there shall be a direction to the respondents to release the vehicle to the petitioner subject to the following terms and conditions.

¶21

a) The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/(Rupees Five Thousand only) before the first respondent.

¶22

b) The petitioner shall surrender the original RC Book before the first respondent and it shall be kept in the custody of the first respondent till the completion of the confiscation proceedings.

¶23

c) The first respondent shall immediately proceed further with the confiscation proceedings by issuing notice to the petitioner and affording him an opportunity and final order shall be passed strictly within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and

¶24

d) The petitioner shall give an undertaking before the first respondent to the effect that the vehicle will be surrendered in case order of confiscation is ultimately passed by the first respondent.

¶25

5.The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the respondents along with the copy of this order.

¶26

6.This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar (P & A)

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶31

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

¶32

2/3

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.2970 of 2021

¶34

Note:

¶35

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 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.

¶36

¶37

The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District.

¶38

The Inspector of Police, CSCID – Dindigul Police Station, Madurai District.

¶39

+1 CC to M/s.S.MALAIKANI, Advocate ( SR-16647[F] dated 20/04/2021 )

¶40

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.2970 of 2021 Dated 19.04.2021

¶41

RS (06.05.2021) 3P 3C

¶42

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

¶43

3/3

Muthusamy. R v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthusamy. R 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

Saravanan. v Vs The Assistant Director of Survey

Surulisamy Vs the District Collector

Union Club Vs the District Collector

Amalraj.J Vs the Prl.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption)

Sivakumar.R Vs The Sub Registrar

Duraimurugan. G Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer