1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD).No.12958 of 2011 B.M.Sherif : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Thackalay Post, Kanyakumari District, 2.The Tahsildar, Vilavancode Taluk, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Marthandam Police Station, Kanyakumari District. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to release the vehicle belongs to the petitioner bearing Regn.No.KL-19-3337 lorry Ashok Leyland Make which was seized on 30.10.2011 by the third respondent. For Petitioner : M/s.C.Muthusaravanan, For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalenthi Special Government Pleader ORDER The present Writ Petition has been filed by B.M.Sherif seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to release the vehicle belongs to the petitioner bearing Registration No.KL-19-3337 lorry Ashok Leyland Make which was seized on 30.10.2011 by the third respondent. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the Ashok Leyland lorry bearing Registration No.KL-19-3337. He has purchased the vehicle during the year by availing the financial assistance from Sundaram Finance, Ernakulam Branch. He has engaged one Grieshkumar as driver of the vehicle to transport sand for construction of his house situate at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Thankapparai, Mancodu Village, Puliyoorsalai Panchamoodu, Tamil Nadu, which is fifteen kilometers away from the Kerala State border. When the petitioner's driver was transporting the sand purchased from one Shiva Agencies at S.No.260, Poosanoor Village, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District as second sale vide receipt No.29668, dated 29.10.2011, the petitioner cannot be found fault with as he is a genuine and bona fide purchaser of the same from a licensed agency, namely, Shiva Agency. When the petitioner has not stolen sand from any river or riverbed illegally, the third respondent, even after seeing the receipt No.29668, dated 29.10.2011 which is an acceptable testimony for the purchase of sand and the site plan of his house to establish that he has purchased sand only for construction of his own house, not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, has seized the vehicle on 30.10.2011 and handed over the same to the second respondent Tahsildar, Vilvancode Taluk. Then, the petitioner approached the second respondent and explained that the sand purchased was only for construction of his own house. Even after explaining the genuineness before the second respondent, the petitioner was not able to get his vehicle released. As a result, the petitioner has come to this Court with the above said prayer. 3. When the matter was called, the learned Special Government Pleader has taken notice for the respondents. After getting instructions from the respondents, he has submitted that the petitioner should also come forward to cooperate with the enquiry to be conducted by the first respondent/the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, as per Rule 36(A) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, subject to this condition the petitioner's vehicle may be released. 4. Considering the above submission and the fact that the vehicle has not given any adverse notice on any previous occasion, exposure of the vehicle to the direct sun and rain would certainly cause deterioration and by taking note of the explanation that he has not transported the sand for commercial purpose but has transported the sand only for construction of his own house, this Court is inclined to give a direction to the first respondent-the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, to release the Ashok Leyland lorry bearing Registration No.KL-19-3337 subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall produce documents before the respondents to establish the ownership of the vehicle in question; (ii) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten Thousand only) with the first respondent; (iii) The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will not use the vehicle for any illegal activities in future and shall produce the same as and when required by the first respondent; (iv) On doing so, the vehicle in question shall be returned to the petitioner; (v) The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle in question till the disposal of the proceedings before the authority concerned; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 In the result, the Writ Petition stands disposed off. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Thackalay Post, Kanyakumari District, 2.The Tahsildar, Vilavancode Taluk, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Marthandam Police Station, Kanyakumari District. +1cc to the Special Govt.Pleader, Sr.No. 40132 +1cc to M/s.C.Muthusaravanan, Advocate, Sr.No.39983 srm ssk/24.11.2011 /6c -3p/- Order made in W.P.(MD).No.12958 of 2011 Dated:- 16.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/