Allowed

Sobha.J v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC7 Mar 2024WP(MD)/8249/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition for compensation. The court held that respondents illegally detained the petitioner’s vehicle despite a valid license and transit pass to demand a bribe. An enquiry confirmed the illegality. The court directed the guilty officers to pay Rs.4,98,380/-.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 5 to 8 directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,98,380/- to the petitioner for illegally detaining her vehicle.

Sobha.J Vs the Secretary to Government — Corruption | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.8249 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Reserved on : 12.12.2023

¶4

Pronounced on:07.03.2024

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN

¶7

W.P(MD)No.8249 of 2021

¶8

J.Sobha ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Secretary to Government, Home and Police Department, Secretariat,

¶11

St.George Fort, Chennai.

¶12

The Inspector General of Police,

¶13

South Zone,

¶14

Madurai.

¶15

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range,

¶16

Tirunelveli.

¶17

The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District

¶18

Nagercoil.

¶19

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

¶20

1/11

¶21

W.P.(MD).No.8249 of 2021

¶22

5. Vanitha Rani

¶23

Inspector of Police, Crime against Women and Children, Superintendent of Police Office, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶24

6. U.Senthilvel,

¶25

Sub Inspector of Police, Armed Reserve Camp, Maravan Kudiyiruppu, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶26

Jose Kumar,

¶27

Head Constable No.1969, Vellichanthai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶28

P.Ramesh,

¶29

Head Constable No.1270, Vadaseri Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶30

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

¶31

2/11

¶32

W.P.(MD).No.8249 of 2021

¶33

9. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶34

Nagercoil,

¶35

Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶36

(R9 is impleaded vide Court order dated 21.11.2023 in WMP(MD)No.17218/2023 in WP(MD).8249/2021 by KKRKJ)

¶37

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order or direction of a like nature directing the respondents to grant compensation of Rs.4,98,380/- for illegally detaining the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 32 V 3299 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 11-11-2019.

¶38

For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 to R4 and R9 : Mr.G.Mohan Kumar for R5

¶39

: M/s. P.Jessi Jeeva Priya for R6 to R8

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to grant compensation of Rs.4,98,380/- for illegally detaining the petitioner's vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 32 V 3299 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 11.11.2019.

¶42

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

¶43

3/11

¶44

W.P.(MD).No.8249 of 2021

¶45

2.The writ petitioner is the owner of the Taurus lorry bearing Registration No.TN 32 V 3299. On 29.04.2017, the petitioner has purchased three units of river sand with proper license and also transit pass. On 30.04.2017 at 5.40 p.m, the respondents 5 to 8 illegally detained the said vehicle and kept it in the Station. To release the vehicle, they demanded bribe amount. Therefore, he was unable to get the release of vehicle. After 71 days, the vehicle was released. Therefore, he sustained loss and hence, he filed the present writ petition seeking compensation.

¶46

3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that despite having license, valid permit and also the transit pass, respondent Nos.5 to 8 illegally detained the said vehicle and demanded bribe amount. Therefore, she submitted a representation on 11.01.2019 to the respondents 1 to 4 to take action against the officers namely the respondents 5 to 8. As per the representation, the third respondent initiated the action against all the persons and conducted the departmental proceedings by appointing enquiry officer. The enquiry officer, after conducting enquiry found that the respondents 5 to 8 illegally demanded bribe amount to release the vehicle. According to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/11

¶47

W.P.(MD).No.8249 of 2021

¶48

enquiry officer, the charge was proved. Therefore, no disputed question is involved in this writ petition. Hence, he seeks for compensation for illegal detention of the vehicle for more than 71 days.

¶49

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 and 9 filed a counter affirming the above facts and also affirmed that disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondents 5 to 8 and the enquiry officer found that there was a demand of bribe amount on the part of the respondents 5 to 8 and hence, they were removed from service. On review, the respondents 5 to 8 were reinstated into services and punishment was modified into that of “postponement of increment for three years which shall operate to postpone his future increment” by the third respondent. Thereafter, an appeal was filed by the Government and the Government also confirmed the finding of the enquiry officer and all the disciplinary authorities and the punishment was modified as “Postponement of increment for one year which shall operate to postpone their future increment”. The petitioner's husband is a history sheeted rowdy and several cases were registered against him in Puthukadai Police Station. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of this writ petition.

¶50

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

¶51

5/11

¶52

W.P.(MD).No.8249 of 2021

¶53

5.The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent filed a

¶54

counter along with typed set of papers stating that this writ petition is not maintainable and disputed facts are involved in this case. Further, in the departmental proceedings even though there was a finding that the fifth respondent and other respondents demanded bribe amount, they are taking steps to challenge the said punishment order. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶55

6.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 6 to 8 also filed a counter and reiterated the above submission of the learned counsel for the fifth respondent and submitted the detailed report stating that the original order passed by the third respondent was converted into the postponement of the increment for one year. In the said circumstances, the respondents 5 to 8 are no way responsible for the illegal detention of the vehicle. They discharged their duty as per law. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶56

7.This Court considered the submissions made on either side and the pleadings of the parties. This Court also perused the record.

¶57

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

¶58

6/11

¶59

W.P.(MD).No.8249 of 2021

¶60

8.The writ petitioner specifically averred in the writ petition that on 30.04.2017, she transported the sand with proper license, permit, valid transit pass. The said vehicle was stopped at Aralvaimozhi Check post at 5.40 p.m. The team consisting respondents 5 to 8 demanded Rs. 2,000/- as a bribe to release the vehicle. The petitioner's driver refused to pay the amount. Hence, her vehicle was illegally detained in the Police Station. After 71 days, the vehicle was released by the Revenue Divisional officer, with some conditions. In the mean time, the vehicle

¶61

got damaged and the petitioner is entirely depending upon the said vehicle for her livelihood. Hence, she sustained huge loss of Rs. 4,98,380/-. Therefore, she made a complaint before the official Respondents 1 to 4. Thereafter, the third respondent initiated the departmental proceedings against the respondents 5 to 8 and the enquiry officer was also appointed. The charge was that they illegally demanded bribe amount and detained the vehicle. The said charge was proved, after conducting examination of number of the witnesses during the departmental proceedings. There was a specific finding that there was a demand of illegal gratification. Hence, the third respondent accepting the enquiry officer's report, passed the punishment of removal from service. The same was challenged by way of review. In the review, the

¶62

respondents 5 to 8 were reinstated into service and punishment was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/11

¶63

W.P.(MD).No.8249 of 2021

¶64

modified into that of “postponement of increment for three years which shall operate to postpone their future increment” by the third respondent. The same was further modified in the mercy petition filed by them to the Government. Further, the same was modified as “Postponement of increment for one year which shall operate to postpone their future increment”.

¶65

9.From the above finding, it is clear that the respondents 5 to 8 illegally detained the vehicle and also demanded bribe amount to release the vehicle. Therefore, there is no disputed question of fact and they illegally detained the vehicle, despite the fact that the petitioner was having a valid license, transmit pass. The learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.13488 of 2005 considered catena of the Honourable Supreme Court judgments and the Division Bench of this Court and held that the writ petition is maintainable, when there was no disputed question of fact. Even in this case according to the counter affidavit filed by all the respondents, the above fact of illegal detention of the vehicle and the transportation of the sand by the petitioner with valid permit is not disputed. Therefore, this court finds that the respondents 5 to 8 have committed illegality in detaining the vehicle without any legitimate cause. Hence, this Court is inclined to grand compensation sought in the writ petition.

¶66

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

¶67

8/11

¶68

W.P.(MD).No.8249 of 2021

¶69

10.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents 5

¶70

to 8 are directed to give compensation of Rs.4,98,380/- to the petitioner for illegally detaining her vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 32 V 3299. No costs.

¶71

07.03.2024

¶72

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

¶73

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

¶74

9/11

¶75

W.P.(MD).No.8249 of 2021

¶76

¶77

The Secretary to Government, Home and Police Department, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai.

¶78

The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.

¶79

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli.

¶80

The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

¶81

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶82

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶83

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

¶84

10/11

¶85

W.P.(MD).No.8249 of 2021

¶86

K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN. J.,

¶87

vsg

¶88

Pre-delivery order made in W.P(MD)No.8249 of 2021

¶89

Dated :07.03.2024

¶90

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

¶91

11/11

Sobha.J v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sobha.J v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayyakutty Vs S.Perumal(Died)

The Deputy Registrar of Vs K.Murugasan

Ali Diwan Sha Masoodhi, Vs R. Senthilkumar

M/S Ajantha Cycle Mart Vs P.N.A.N Beemaraja Nadar(died)

Nithya Vs The Inspector of Police

Syed Yahoob Sahib Vs Hassan Mohideen