1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15/06/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition (MD) No.5760 and 5761 of 2011 and M.P (MD) Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 P.Manikantan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.5760/11 M.Alavudeen ... Petitioner in W.P.No.5761/11 Vs 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 3.Durgamoorthy ... Respondents in both W.Ps. Prayer in W.P.No.5760/2011: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent made in Na.Ka.No.B2/2059/2011, dated 23.05.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to release earth moving equipment “Hitachi Z Exis 200 LC”. Prayer in W.P.No.5761/2011: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent made in Na.Ka.No.B2/2059/2011, dated 23.05.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to release the lorry bearing the Tata Taurus Tipper lorry bearing Registration No.TN-59-AL-5350. For petitioner ...Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondents ...Mr.B.Pugalendhi Special Government pleader O R D E R These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the impugned order of the second respondent dated 23.05.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. The short background of the matter is set out hereunder: The petitioners approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing the Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.5632 and 5627 of 2011 for release of the vehicles in question. This Court by an order dated 11.05.2011 directed the second respondent to release the vehicles on certain conditions. While so, the present impugned order came to be passed directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.16,01,600/- with a further direction that the vehicles in question will be released, if the said amount is paid by them. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing these writ petitions. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly contended that when this Court granted an order for release of the vehicles by imposing certain conditions, the second respondent cannot impose certain more conditions for the release of the vehicle. The said order of the second respondent, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, is against the spirit of the order passed by this Court. The notice directing the petitioners to appear before the second respondent was served on the petitioners only on 23.05.2011, the day the second respondent has passed the impugned order. Hence, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners could not be present before the second respondent and pursue their matter. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, from the second respondent, who is present before this Court, contended that the petitioners did not appear before the second respondent to establish that they are the owners of the vehicle and they have not executed a letter of undertaking as was directed by this Court in the writ petitions filed by them. That apart, since the petitioners did not appear before the second respondent, the impugned order came to be passed by the second respondent, which cannot be faulted. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 6. The facts, which are not disputed, are that the petitioners have approached this Court by filing writ petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.5627 and 5632 of 2011 for release of the vehicles in question. This Court, by an order, dated 11.05.2011, directed the second respondent to release the vehicles on the following conditions: “1.The petitioner shall establish the ownership of the vehicle by producing necessary documents and certificates before the respondent. 2.It is made clear that the petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle till the adjudication is completed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 3.The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.7,500/- (rupees seven thousand five hundred only) by way of cash to the respondent; and 4.It is made clear that the petitioner shall give an undertaking before the respondent that he shall not use the vehicle, for any illegal activities in future.” Thereafter the second respondent seems to have sent a notice to the petitioners to appear for an enquiry. It is represented that the said notice has reached the petitioners only on 23.05.2011, the date, on which, the impugned order came to be passed. Hence, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners could not appear before the second respondent. However, the said fact is disputed by the learned Special Government Pleader. But the fact remains that the impugned order came to be passed on 23.05.2011, wherein, the second respondent directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.16,01,600/- with a condition that the vehicle in question will be released only after the payment of the said amount. The second respondent, in the event of the petitioners not appearing before her with all relevant documents for the vehicles in question to show that they belonged to them and that they have not executed a letter of undertaking, as was directed by this Court, should have passed an order to that effect. But, unfortunately, in the impugned order, there is no reference about the same. That apart, when this Court directed the release of the vehicles on certain conditions, the second respondent ought not to have imposed certain other conditions for release of the vehicles. The second respondent, no doubt, may be justified in passing the order directing the petitioners to pay the said amount. But the second respondent ought not to have ordered that the vehicles in question will be released only after the payment of the said amount. Perhaps, the second respondent, who has been recently appointed, has not taken serious of the order passed by this Court, in an anxiety to collect the revenue for the Government from the petitioner, who according to her, caused loss to Government by illegal quarrying and transporting them. This Court appreciates her anxiety and anguish. At the same time has to say that the conditional order passed by this Court ought to have been respected. 7. In view of the above stated position, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order of the second respondent by giving the following directions: (a) The petitioners are directed to appear before the second respondent with necessary documents to establish that they are the owners of the vehicles in question. (b) They are also directed to execute a letter of undertaking before the second respondent that they shall not use the vehicles in question for illegal activities. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 (c) they shall also deposit a sum of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) each by way of cash before the second respondent as was directed by this Court. (d) if the above three conditions have been complied with by the petitioners, the second respondent is directed to release the vehicles forthwith. (e) if the petitioners did not comply with the said requirement, the second respondent need not release the vehicles in question in favour of the petitioners. (f) The second respondent is directed to cause notice to each of the petitioners giving them seven days time from the date of receipt of the said notice to offer their explanations for the said notice. If explanation is received from the petitioners in time, it is open to the second respondent to hold an enquiry and pass appropriate order on merits and in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. +1cc to the Special Govt.Pleader, Sr.No.18813 rr ssk/22.06.2011 /4c-4p/- W.P.(MD) Nos.5760 and 5761 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1,1 and 2,2 of 2011 15.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/