Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

M.Ezhumalai vs The Tahsildar

Madras High Court|10 March, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Mr.M.Elumalai, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the respondents to release the Tipper Lorry bearing Regn.No.TN32 S 7799 seized by the respondent on 15.02.2017.
3. It is stated that the above vehicle was seized by the 1st respondent on 15.02.2017 on the allegation that the said vehicle was indulged in transporting sand in violation of certain provisions under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules,1959. According to the petitioner, there was no such violation and on the other hand, it was used only for the personal consumption of the petitioner. Needless to say that it is for the authority to consider such claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders and therefore, this Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the claim made by the petitioner. However, considering the fact that the vehicle was seized as early as on 15.02.2017 and the same is kept idle thereby exposing it to sun and rain, which undoubtedly would diminish its value, this Court is of the view that the following order will protect the interest of both parties:
a) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) before the 2nd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
b) The petitioner shall appear in person and produce all the relevant documents proving the ownership of the vehicle for verification of the authority in proof of such ownership.
(c) On receipt of payment as stated supra and also on being satisfied with the ownership of the vehicle, the respondents shall release the same forthwith.
(d) The petitioner shall not use the said vehicle for any unlawful purpose and also shall not alienate the same during the pendency of the proceedings.
(e) It is open to the 2nd respondent to initiate proceedings in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.
mk
(f) If no such order is passed within the time stipulated therein, the amount so paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
10.03.2017 Speaking/Non Speaking Index : Yes/No mk To
1. The Tahsildar Taluk Office, Ulundurpet Villupuram District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirukoilur, Villupuram District.
W.P.No.5904 of 2017 http://www.judis.nic.in
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

M.Ezhumalai vs The Tahsildar

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
10 March, 2017