BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
A.Villava Rayan - Petitioner
Vs.
The State Human Rights Commission – Respondents
Writ Petition (MD). No.14246 of 2016
Decided On : 08-08-2016
State Human Rights Commission - Grievance of petitioner regarding release of tractor due to non-availability of original RC book - Court directs District Collector to look into the representation of the petitioner and pass necessary orders within a specified time period
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's tractor was not being released by the Revenue Divisional Officer due to non-availability of the original RC book, despite the petitioner's attempts to provide attested and xerox copies. The State Human Rights Commission had directed the District Collector to enquire into the matter and take necessary action, but no orders had been passed till date.
Finding of the Court:
The Court, without delving into the merits of the petitioner's representation, directed the District Collector to look into the petitioner's representation and pass necessary orders within a specified time period, ensuring adherence to the principles of Natural Justice.
Issues: Non-release of tractor due to non-availability of original RC book, failure of authorities to take necessary action despite directions from State Human Rights Commission
Ratio Decidendi: In the interest of Justice and Fair Play, the Court directed the District Collector to look into the petitioner's representation and pass necessary orders within a specified time period, ensuring adherence to the principles of Natural Justice.
Final Decision: The writ petition stands disposed of with the Court's directions to the District Collector.
1. Heard both sides.
2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondents.
4. According to the petitioner, the first respondent/State Human Rights Commission in SHRC Case No.7598 of 2014, on 02.12.2014, had directed the second respondent/District Collector, Tirunelveli, to enquire into the matter and take necessary action. The grievance of the petitioner is that his original RC book was kept in Bank and he approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi with attested copy of RC Book, Notary's letter along with Rs.15,000/-. But the Revenue Divisional Officer rejected his request and refused to release the vehicle without original RC Book, even though the attested RC Book was produced before him. Further, the petitioner approached the Bank for getting the original RC Book and the Bank had also instructed him that original RC Book would be handed over to him only on payment of remaining loan amount. Since he is an agriculturist, he could not pay the remaining loan amount immediately, therefore, he is not in a position to recover his tractor from the Revenue Divisional Officer. His tractor is remaining idle for more than one year and now, the same is damaged.
5. It comes to be known that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi sent a letter on 22.07.2014 to the petitioner stating that his tractor would be released on production of original or xerox copy of RC Book of tractor. Before the receipt of the said letter, the petitioner approached the Revenue Divisional Officer several times with xerox copies of RC Book. But he strongly refused to release the vehicle without original RC Book. In fact, the petitioner submitted a complaint on 27.10.2014 before the first respondent/State Human Rights Commission, against the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar and Regional Deputy Tahsildar. The first respondent had registered a case in SHRC Case No.7598 of 2014 and directed the second respondent/District Collector, Tirunelveli District for conducting an enquiry and take necessary action, as per letter dated, 02.12.2014. The third respondent/Sub-Collector, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District issued summons on 08.06.2015 and conducted enquiry on 15.06.2015, in which, the petitioner attended the enquiry on 15.06.2015. However, no orders have been passed till date. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation on 23.01.2016 to the second respondent/District Collector, Tirunelveli District to take necessary action, as per order of the first respondent. However, till date, the respondents have not passed any orders. Hence, he has filed the present writ petition.
6. Considering the fact that the petitioner's representation dated 23.01.2016 is pending before the second respondent/District Collector, Tirunelveli District, this Court, at this stage, without traversing upon the merits and contents of the representation of the petitioner dated 23.01.2016, simpliciter, in the interest of Justice and Fair Play, directs the second respondent/ District Collector, Tirunelveli District, to look into the representation of the petitioner dated 23.01.2016, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, the second respondent/District Collector, Tirunelveli District shall pass necessary orders in the subject matter in issue on merits (of-course, after providing necessary opportunity to the petitioner and others concerned, if any, by adhering to the principles of Natural Justice in true letter and spirit), within a period of three weeks. In case, the second respondent/District Collector, Tirunelveli District is in requirement of any copy of record/document or original copy of any record/document, then, the same may be called for from the petitioner by means of notice or issuance of memo and in this regard, the petitioner, soon after receipt of the said notice or memo, is also required to lend his assistance and co-operation to
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.