Dismissed

Sugumar.G v. the Assistant Director

Madras HC19 Dec 2024WP(MD)/3971/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge dismissed a writ petition seeking release of a bullock cart. Relying on a Division Bench precedent, the court held that the power to release vehicles involved in offences under the Mines and Minerals Act lies exclusively with the designated Court, not revenue or police authorities.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for release of bullock cart dismissed; liberty granted to file application before designated Court if vehicle remains in custody.

Sugumar.G Vs the Assistant Director — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 19.12.2024

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

W.P (MD).No.3971 of 2021

G.Sugumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

¶10

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

¶11

3.The Tahsildar, Papanasam, Thanjavur District.

¶12

4.The Inspector of Police, Melatur Police Station, Thanjavur District. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 4 to forthwith release the Petitioner‘s bullock Cart from their custody on the basis of the Petitioner‘s representation, dated 19.02.2021.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Susikumar

¶15

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

¶16

1/7

¶17

For Respondents : Mr. s.Shanmugavel 1 to 3 Addl. Govt.Pleader For Respondent-4 : M/s.M.Aasha Govt.Advocate(Crl.side)

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This writ petition has been filed for a direction, directing the respondents 2 and 4 to forthwith release the Petitioner‘s bullock Cart from their custody on the basis of the Petitioner‘s representation, dated 19.2.2021.

¶20

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶21

3.The issue in respect of release of Vehicle has been already dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.SR.No.49596 of 2020, dated

¶22

20.08.2020 (G.Elangovan .vs. The District Collecor, District Collectorate,Tiruvarur District) and directed to submit an application for release of vehicle when the offence committed under the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder before the designated Court under the Act. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:

¶23

‘‘5.From the aforesaid orders passed, it has been

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/7

¶25

made clear by the Division Bench in which one of aus was a party( Justice M.M.Sundresh ) to the effect that any application for release of the vehcile when an offence mentioned under the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 or the Rules framed thereunder is indicated, the remedy open to the party is to approach the designated Court. Applying the same logic, even in a case where an FIR has been registered on the basis of a private complaint and when the allegation indicates an offence punishable udner the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 or the Rules framed any request for release of vehicle will have to be made before the designated Court alone. This is for the reason that the allegaion would constitute an offence under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)ASct and Rules framed thereunder and therefore notwithstanding the non mentioning of the violation committed under the proisions of Indian Penal Coder, it is only the designated Court which will have jurisdiction.

¶26

6.In the Judgment referred above, the Division Bench has clearly indicated the difference between the seizure and confiscation,particularly, in the light of the provisions governed under the enactment. Therefore, the power to relase is only available to the designated Court. This is for the reason that confiscation involves a process and a release is not a matter of course being one of the option open to the Court by considering the facts governing. If that is the position, this Court cnnot

¶27

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

¶28

3/7

¶29

interdict the same without going into the role assigned to the designated Court and without taking note of the relevant provisions governing.

¶30

7.Before the learned Single Judge, unfortunately, the order of the Division Bench has not been brought to the notice. Perhaps, that is the reason why the scope and ambit of the provisions concerned available with the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) act, 1957 has not been taken note of. As stated, the Division Bench has clearly mentioned in one of its directions that the only remedy open to a person seeking release of vehicle, which is allegedly involved in an offence attracted under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals(Development and Reguation) Act, 1957 and the Rules is before the designated Court. In such view of the matter, the objection raised by the Registry stands upheld.

¶31

8.There is a thought proess which was gone into at the time of passing the order by the Division Bench. One of the reasons is that the designated Court is expected to apply its mind on the merits and facts of the case before exercising its power either for confiscation or release, as the case may be. We have already held that even the revenue authority does not have the power to release the vehicle on compounding. Once such a power is not available, power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being discretionary and directory also cannot be invoked in a given case where the vehicle is also with

¶32

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

¶33

4/7

¶34

the custody of the Police. The designated court can exercise the power of release or confiscation irrespective of the fact tht the vehicle is with the Police or with the judicial custody. This will also solve the problem of delay that may occur.‘‘

¶35

4.In view of the above, the prayer sought for in this Writ Petition

¶36

cannot be maintained and the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, if the vehicle is still under the custody of the fourth respondent, the Petitioner is at liberty to file an application before the designated Court, in the manner known to law.

¶37

19.12.2024

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

1.The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

¶41

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

¶42

3.The Tahsildar, Papanasam, Thanjavur District.

¶43

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

¶44

5/7

¶45

4.The Inspector of Police, Melatur Police Station, Thanjavur District.

¶46

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

¶47

6/7

¶48

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶49

vsn

¶50

ORDER MADER IN

¶51

W.P (MD).No.3971 of 2021

¶52

19.12.2024

¶53

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

¶54

7/7

Sugumar.G v. the Assistant Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugumar.G v. the Assistant Director

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

Muthaiah Vs the District Collector

Malarvizhi.a Vs the District Collector

Seenivasan K Vs The District Registrar (Administration)

Kesavaraj.S Vs the Asst.Director

Sulaika Beevi Vs The Sub-Registrar

Balu Vs the Asst.Director of Mines