Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 2706
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
G.Murugan – Petitioner
Vs.
The Revenue Divisional Officer Cheyyar Thiruvannamalai District & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.No.17535 of 2017
Decided On : 11-07-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr.G.Punniakoti
For the Respondents: Mr.R.Rajeswaran, SGP.
The court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the release of a seized vehicle, subject to compliance with specified conditions.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Release of Seized Vehicle - The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- with the respondent, produce ownership documents, and file an undertaking for the release of the seized vehicle, subject to compliance with specified conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the release of a seized Tractor with Trailer, claiming that the sand was transported for personal agricultural use and did not fall under the purview of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The petitioner had also submitted a representation to the respondent, which was pending consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The court, considering the pending representation and the earlier order passed in a similar case, directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- with the respondent, produce ownership documents, and file an undertaking for the release of the seized vehicle, subject to compliance with specified conditions.
Issues: Seizure of vehicle for transporting sand without valid bill or permission, pending representation, and release of the seized vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the pending representation, the petitioner's claim of transporting sand for personal agricultural use, and the earlier order passed in a similar case, which imposed conditions for releasing the vehicle.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the release of the seized vehicle, subject to compliance with specified conditions.
1. Mr. R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents.
2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to release the Tractor with Trailer bearing Registration No.TN-21-9451 which was seized by the 2nd respondent on 02.06.2017 and thereby consider the representation dated 05.06.2017.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court, by order dated 27.02.2017 in W.P.No.4805 of 2017, disposed of the said writ petition by imposing some conditions for releasing the vehicle. The relevant portion of the order passed in W.P.No.4805 of 2017 reads as follows:-
"6. Having regard to the fact that the representation dated 24.1.2017 is pending consideration of the 1st respondent, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction, since there will not be any purpose in detaining the subject vehicle for a longer period:-
"(i) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) in cash with the first respondent.
(ii) The petitioner shall produce documents before the first respondent to establish the ownership of the vehicle in question.
(iii) The petitioner shall file an undertaking that he will produce the vehicle in question before the respondent as and when called for and that he will not alienate the vehicle in question till the proceedings initiated are completed.
(iv) On compliance of the above conditions, the respondent is directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner within two days.
(v) The respondent shall proceed with the enquiry and pass appropriate orders. The petitioner is also directed to appear and cooperate with the enquiry.
(vi) This order for release of vehicle can be availed of by the petitioner if no criminal case is pending. If any criminal case is pending, it is open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate to get release of the vehicle by filing appropriate application and the same can be considered in accordance with law".
5. It appears that the vehicle of the petitioner was seized on 02.06.2017 on account of a charge levelled against him that he was transporting sand without any valid bill or permission of the Government.
6. The petitioner, on the other hand, claims that the sand was transported by him for his personal use and it was required for agricultural purpose and therefore, it would not come within the purview of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. In this regard, the petitioner seeks to place reliance upon Rule 6 of the said Rules.
7. The petitioner further contends that he had submitted a representation dated 05.06.2017 in this regard to the first respondent and since no order has been passed on such representation, he is constrained to file the present writ petition. Further, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the vehicle is kept in open weather, by which the same is getting damaged.
8. Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents submitted that since the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the earlier order passed by this Court, the same order can be passed in this writ petition also.
9. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and that the representation dated 05.06.2017 is pending consideration before the 1st respondent, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions, since there will not be any purpose in detaining the subject vehicle for a longer period:-
"(i) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) in cash with the first respondent.
(ii) The petitioner shall produce documents before the first respondent to establish the ownership of the vehicle in question.
(iii) The petit
