Justice G.R.Swaminathan, in a Writ petition for the issuance of the Writ of Mandamus, placed certain conditions for granting the writ and one of the conditions was the payment of Rs.3000/-, which was further directed to be spent on the infrastructure of the District Courts in Dharmapuri.
Brief Facts:
This Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner for issuance of a writ of Mandamus for the interim custody of the petitioner’s vehicle. The vehicle was seized in connection to a Crime registered by the first respondent, that is the Inspector of the Police and the seized vehicle is in the custody of the First Respondent, that is the District Revenue Officer because the vehicle was found to be illegally transporting PDS rice.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court noted that the respondent authority had the option of initiating confiscation proceedings and that is why the court was only concerned with granting interim custody. Further, it was noted that there was no purpose that was being served by keeping the vehicle under the custody of the respondents, and for the same, the Supreme Court’s decision in the Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Others v. State of Gujrat case was referred.
The decision of the Court:
The Hon’ble court granted the interim custody of the Petitioner’s vehicles but it was subject to certain conditions. One of these conditions was the payment of a sum of Rs.3000/-, which would be non-refundable, and the Principal District Judge was directed to spend the deposited amount for enhancing the infrastructure of the courts in Dharmapuri District. Further, the petitioner was directed to provide all documents relating to the ownership of the seized vehicle, they were also directed not to alienate or encumber the vehicle till the proceedings are completed and to produce the vehicle as when required by the respondents.
Case Title: Ramu v. The District Revenue Officer and The Inspector of Police
Coram: Hon’ble Justice G.R.Swaminathan
Case No.: W.P(MD)No.1168 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. A. Balaji
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr.M.Lingadurai (Spl. Government Pleader for R1);
Mr. B Thanga Aravindh (Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R2)
Read Judgment ;
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments