Disposed

Christhu Dhas v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC2 Aug 2021WP(MD)/2995/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus for release of a seized Bolero pickup. Court noted vehicle is registered to a third party. Directed first respondent to consider representation and pass reasoned order within one month providing opportunity to petitioner and registered owner via Article 226.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to consider petitioner's representation and pass a reasoned order within one month providing opportunity to both petitioner and registered owner.

Christhu Dhas Vs The District Revenue Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.2995 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.08.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.(MD)No.2995 of 2021

¶3

Christhu Dhas ... Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

The District Revenue Officer, Kanyakumari District, At Nagercoil.

¶6

The Special Tahsildar, Flying Squad, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶7

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 namely Bolero Pickup bearing registration No.TN-72-AY-6334 to the petitioner forthwith.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Selvakumaran For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran, Counsel for State

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

The petitioner seeks the release of a Bolero pickup vehicle bearing registration No.TN-72-AY-6334.

¶11

The petitioner states that he purchased the said vehicle from one Mr.Franklin on 18.01.2020. The said vehicle was seized on 20.08.2020 by the second respondent on the alleged ground that it was used for the illegal transportation of PDS rice.

¶12

The petitioner states that in spite of submitting a representation on 24.08.2020 to the first respondent for the release of the vehicle, no action has been taken in such regard by the first respondent.

¶13

Mr.R.Baskaran, learned counsel for the State, appears on behalf of both the respondents and states that the vehicle was seized in view of the fact that it was found to be carrying PDS rice unlawfully.

¶14

The documents on record disclose that the vehicle is registered in the name of one Mr.Franklin and not in the name of the petitioner. Although the petitioner claims that he purchased the

¶15

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

¶16

1/2

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.2995 of 2021

¶18

vehicle from Mr.Franklin alias Francis, on the basis of an agreement dated 18.01.2020, a mandamus cannot be issued for the release of the vehicle without ascertaining and establishing the correct owner of such vehicle. The registered owner of the vehicle is not even a party to the present writ petition. Nevertheless, the petitioner's contention that the vehicle would deteriorate in condition and possibly depreciate in value unless some action is taken at the earliest cannot be disregarded. In this connection, it may be noticed that there do not appear to be any criminal proceedings in connection with the seizure and it is not clear as to whether confiscation was effected.

¶19

In the above facts and circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.08.2020 and pass a reasoned order thereon after providing a reasonable opportunity both to the petitioner and to the registered owner of the vehicle. Such reasoned order shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

without any order as to costs.

¶21

Assistant Registrar (A.D.II)

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶24

pkn

¶25

¶26

The District Revenue Officer, Kanyakumari District,At Nagercoil.

¶27

The Special Tahsildar, Flying Squad, Nagercoil,Kanyakumari District.

¶28

+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-25082[F] dated 03/08/2021 )

¶29

+1 CC to M/s.T.SELVAKUMARAN, Advocate ( SR-25098[F] dated 03/08/2021 )

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.2995 of 2021 02.08.2021 RD(9.08.2021) 2P 5C

¶31

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

¶32

2/2

Christhu Dhas v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Christhu Dhas 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

J.Jayaraj Vs Director General of Police

N.Asokan, S/O.R.C.Natarajan Vs the Secretary to Government

Lakshmikanth Kalathi Vs the Commissioner of Transport

Jagadesan.K.N Vs the Designated Officer

Muthukumar Vs The District Revenue Officer

Manikandan.P Vs the Managing Director