Dismissed

The Revenue Divisional Officer v. M.Arumugavel

Madras HC3 Apr 2024WA(MD)/765/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal filed against an order directing the Revenue Divisional Officer and Inspector of Police to refund Rs.26,170/- imposed as a fine for violating river sand transport permit conditions. The Court held the Single Judge's order was not perverse and directed the officials to refund the amount with 6% per annum interest.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Revenue Divisional Officer and Inspector of Police to refund Rs.26,170/- to the petitioner with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the Single Judge's order till payment.

The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs M.Arumugavel — Money Laundering | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A.(MD) No.765 of of

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.04.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

JUSTICE N. SESHASAYEE

¶6

and

¶7

JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI

¶8

W.A.(MD) No.765 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD) No.4534 of 2018

¶9

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruchendur, Tuticorin District.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station, Tuticorin District.

¶11

... Appellants/ Respondents 1 & 2

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.M.Arumugavel 2.Muthu Ramasubramanian, Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station, Tuticorin District.

¶14

... 1^st Respondent/Petitioner ... 2^nd Respondent/ 3^rd Respondent

¶15

_________Page 1 of 5

¶16

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

¶17

W.A.(MD) No.765 of of

¶18

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 20.09.2017 made in W.P.(MD) No.14718 of 2014.

¶19

For Appellants	:	Mr.N.Muthuvijayan Special Government Pleader
For R1	:	Mr.Raja Karthikeyan
For R2	:	Ms.P.Kalaiyarasi Bharathi

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SESHASAYEE, J. )

¶22

This appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single Judge directing the appellants herein to refund a sum of Rs.26,170/-, which the appellants have collected for violating the term of permit granted for transportation of river sand.

¶23

On 19.04.2014, the writ petitioner/1^st respondent herein had purchased 2

¶24

units of river sand from an authorised vendor at Pudukottai District and transported it in his lorry bearing Registration No.TN 22 AQ 8053. The

¶25

Page 2 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

W.A.(MD) No.765 of of

¶28

permit says that the consignment was to be unloaded at Udangudi. However, the consignment of sand was alleged to have been unloaded at Kayalpattinam, which is few kilo meters before Udangudi. Since according to the appellants there was a breach of the condition in the permit, they imposed a fine of Rs.26,170/-.

¶29

Contending that the appellants' action is arbitrary, the 1^st respondent had approached this Court in W.P.(MD) No.14718 of 2014. This was contested by the 2^nd respondent-Inspector of Police, who intercepted the vehicle. But the learned Single Judge was plainly unconvinced about the stands taken by the respondents before him and ordered re-fund of Rs.26,170/- within a period of four weeks. This order is now under challenge in this appeal.

¶30

Heard both sides and perused the records. This Court is satisfied that the line of reasoning of the learned Single Judge cannot be considered as perverse or illegal as to warrant an interference at this appellate stage.

¶31

_________Page 3 of 5

¶32

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

¶33

W.A.(MD) No.765 of of

¶34

Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed and the order dated 20.09.2017 made in W.P.(MD) No.14718 of 2014 is confirmed. Now the appellants are directed to refund the said sum with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the order of the learned Single Judge till the date of payment. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

(N.S.S., J.) (P.V.M., J.) 03.04.2024

¶36

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes

¶37

ABR

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

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

¶40

W.A.(MD) No.765 of of

¶41

N. SESHASAYEE, J. and P.VADAMALAI, J.

¶42

ABR

¶43

W.A.(MD) No.765 of 2018

¶44

03.04.2024

¶45

_________Page 5 of 5

¶46

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

The Revenue Divisional Officer v. M.Arumugavel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Revenue Divisional Officer v. M.Arumugavel

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

Sree Krishna Education Trust, Vs the Secretary to Government of

Prakash Vs the Superintendent of Police

P.Govindarajan, Vs the Secretary

R.Natarajan Vs Thirunavukarasi

C.Mary John, Vs the Chief Educational Officer

M/S.Sri Sri Ragavendran Vs the Commercial Tax