1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD)No.1084 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 R.Rajkumar ... Appellant/ Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Sivagangai District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai Revenue Division, District collector Office Campus, Sivagangai District. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Thiruppachethi Police Station, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 26.09.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.10461 of 2011. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the petitioner's TATA open Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-58-E-2116 kept at Tiruppachetti Police Station campus forthwith by considering the petitioner's representation dated 02.09.2011. For Appellant : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.S.Venkatesh, Govt.Pleader. JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.N.BASHA, J] This writ appeal is directed challenging the order of the writ court, dated 26.09.2011, passed in W.P.(MD)No.10461 of 2011 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant for the relief of a direction to the respondents to release his vehicle, namely TATA Open Lorry, bearing Regn.No.TN-58 E 2116, by considering his representation, dated 02.09.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the appellant is the owner of the lorry in question and he has nothing to do with the offences alleged against him and the said lorry was seized by the 4th respondent police and thereafter proceedings were initiated by the 2nd respondent. It is contended that the appellant preferred a representation, dated 02.09.2011, seeking for the relief of release of the lorry in question by making a specific statement to the effect that he is the owner of the lorry and he is also in possession of necessary documents to substantiate his claim for ownership in respect of the lorry involved in this matter. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the writ court, without considering all these aspects, mainly placed reliance on the cases registered against one Ravi to whom the appellant leased out his lorry for a limited period and rejected the relief sought for by the appellant. Therefore, it is contended that the order passed by the writ court is liable to be set aside. 3.Heard the learned Government Pleader on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned Government Pleader would contend that the writ court has given a finding to the effect that the appellant is not the owner of the vehicle but, on the other hand, only Ravi is the owner, against whom number of criminal cases have been registered and on that ground the relief sought for by the appellant was rejected. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the writ court. 4.We have carefully considered the contentions put-forth by the counsel on either side and perused the entire materials available on record, including the order passed by the writ court, dated 26.09.2011. 5.At the outset, it is to be stated that the appellant has preferred the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.10461/2011 seeking for the limited relief of a direction to the respondents to consider his representation, dated 02.09.2011, seeking for the relief of release of lorry bearing Regn.No.58-E 2116. The perusal of the order passed by the writ court reveals that the writ court has mainly considered the cases registered against one Ravi, who claims to be the owner of the lorry. But, according to the appellant, he is the owner of the said lorry and he has let out the lorry to the said Ravi for his use, for a limited period. It is seen that the writ court, considering the criminal cases registered against the said Ravi, has rejected the relief sought for by the appellant. 6.We are able to see that the appellant has admittedly made a representation on 02.09.2011 and the fact remains that the said representation is yet to be considered by the respondents herein. It is needless to state that whenever a person comes forward with a representation seeking for the relief of release or return of property, including vehicles, it is incumbent on the part of the authorities to give him reasonable opportunity to put-forth his case and thereafter to pass orders in the manner known to law. But, unfortunately, in this case no orders were passed by the respondents herein on the representation made by the appellant on 02.09.2011. Therefore, considering such a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 limited prayer, we are of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents in the event of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the appellant, dated 02.09.2011, by affording reasonable opportunity to him to put-forth his case and to substantiate his claim that he is the owner of the lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-58 E 2116, by producing relevant documents. 7.Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the writ court in W.P.(MD)No.10461/2011, dated 26.09.2011 and consequently, without going in to the merits of the representation of the appellant, dated 02.09.2011, we are constrained to direct the 2nd respondent, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, to consider the representation of the appellant, by affording reasonable opportunity to him and by perusing the relevant documents that may be produced by him to substantiate his claim regarding ownership of the TATA Lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-58 E 2116 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8.The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To: 1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Sivagangai District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai Revenue Division, District collector Office Campus, Sivagangai District. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Thiruppachethi Police Station, Sivagangai District. +1cc to Mr.R.Alagumani Advocate, SR.No.36167 gb GH : 20.10.2011 : 3p/6c JUDGMENT IN W.A.(MD)No.1084/2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 Dated:19.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/