Partly allowed

Elumalai v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC9 Sept 2022WP(MD)/21508/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking release of a seized lorry. Relying on a recent Division Bench order, the Court held the remedy lies with the jurisdictional designated court. The petitioner was directed to file a petition before that court within two weeks for disposal on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to file appropriate petition before jurisdictional designated Court within two weeks; writ petition disposed of.

Elumalai Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.21508 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.09.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

¶6

W.P(MD)No.21508 of 2022

Elumalai

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Trichy District.

¶11

2.The Assistant Director of Mines and Minerals, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar, Thottiyam Taluk Office, Trichy District. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to release the petitioner's Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-29-AY-2940, seized on 10.05.2019 and keeping under the custody of the third respondent to consider his representation dated 26.07.2022.

¶14

1/6

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P(MD)No.21508 of 2022

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Arunraj For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(Order of the Court was made by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)

¶20

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to release the petitioner's Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-29-AY-2940, seized on 10.05.2019 and is kept under the custody of the third respondent, by considering his representation dated 26.07.2022.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that on 09.05.2019, when the petitioner's vehicle namely, Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-29-AY-2940, was running near Appananallur area, the Village Administrative Officer of Kolakkudi intercepted his vehicle and seized the same on an allegation that the vehicle was carrying illegal river sand without any valid permit. On a complaint of the Village Administrative Officer, Kolakkudi, a case was registered on 10.05.2019 in Crime No. 111/2019 under Sections 379, 353 and 307 of IPC read with Section 21(1)

¶22

2/6

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P(MD)No.21508 of 2022

¶25

of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, on the file of the third respondent police station. Hence, the writ petition.

¶26

In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in E.Kavitha vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur District and two others (W.P(MD)No.12520 of 2021, dated 26.07.2021), has passed the following order:-

¶27

''The petitioner, who is claiming to be the owner of the vehicle, seeks release of the same by filing the writ petition in pursuant to her representation made on 09.07.2021.

¶28

2.We have already held that remedy open to the petitioner is to approach the jurisdictional designated Court and not to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. This is also for the reason that power of confiscation is available to the designated Court. Though an First Information Report has been registered, the offence involved would include Sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code and 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Such a situation has already been taken note of by way of a clarification by us indicating the procedure to be followed. Thus, the present writ petition stands closed giving liberty to the petitioner to work out her remedy in the manner known to law in tune with the order of the Division Bench. In the event of filing a petition before the jurisdictional designated Court, the said Court is expected to

¶29

3/6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P(MD)No.21508 of 2022

¶32

dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such an application. No costs.''

¶33

In view of the abovesaid order, the petitioner is directed to file

¶34

appropriate petition before the jurisdictional designated Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such filing of the petition, the jurisdictional Court is directed to dispose of the same within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶35

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No

¶36

costs.

¶37

[R.M.D.,J.] & [J.S.N.P.,J.] Index : Yes / No 09.09.2022 Internet : Yes bala

¶38

¶39

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Trichy District.

¶40

2.The Assistant Director of Mines and Minerals, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶41

4/6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

3.The Tahsildar, Thottiyam Taluk Office, Trichy District.

¶44

W.P(MD)No.21508 of 2022

¶45

5/6

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

W.P(MD)No.21508 of 2022

¶48

R.MAHADEVAN,J. and J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.

¶49

bala

¶50

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.21508 of 2022 DATED : 09.09.2022

¶51

6/6

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Elumalai v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elumalai 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

I. Robert Chandra Kumar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Christoper Selvaraj Vs The District Collector

Murugesan. S Vs The District Collector

The Secretary Vs the Director of Town & Country

Balasubramanian, Vs The District Collector

R.Syed Abdul Kadhar Vs The Superintendent of Police