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

M.Perumalsamy vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras High Court|29 June, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the respondent to release the Lorry bearing Registration No. TN-25-AY-9394 seized by the Inspector of Police Kancheepuram Taluk Police Station, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District on 18.06.2017 to the petitioner.
2. It is stated that the above said vehicle was seized by the Inspector of Police Kancheepuram Taluk Police Station on 18.06.2017 on the allegation that the said vehicle was indulged in transporting sand without any valid bill of permission of the Government 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 18.06.2017 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 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 Lorry 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 Lorry, the respondent shall release the same forthwith.
d) The petitioner shall not use the said vehicle Lorry for any unlawful purpose and also shall not alienate the same during the pendency of the proceedings.
e) It is open to the 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.
f) If no such order is passed within the time stipulated K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.
Vsi/sm therein, the amount so paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly costs.
29.06.2017 Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order vsi/sm Note: Issue order copy on 30.06.2017 To The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.
W.P.No. 16094 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.Perumalsamy vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
29 June, 2017